Elgin County Greenway Mapping Methodology

Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan

Prepared by

Jarmo Jalava, Stanley Caveney, Mark Carabetta, Daria Koscinski, Rhonda Donley and the Elgin Greenway CAP Development Team

Carolinian Canada Coalition

In partnership with Ontario Nature & the Thames Talbot Land Trust

Assistance for this project was provided by the Government of Ontario

and

Environment Environnement Canada Canada

Habitat Stewardship Program for Species At Risk

i Recommended citation:

Jalava, J.V., S. Caveney, M. Carabetta, D. Koscinski, R. Donley and the Elgin Greenway CAP Development Team. 2012. Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan. Carolinian Canada Coalition, London, Ontario. x + 53 pp. + appendices.

Cover photo © John St. Pierre

ii Table of Contents

Plan Authors, CAP Team and Contributors ...... iv i. Background & Rationale ...... vi 1. Conservation Context...... 1 i. Geographic Context ...... 1 ii. Historical, Cultural and Socioeconomic Context ...... 2 iii. Ecological Context ...... 4 iv. Natural Cover / Ecosystem Types ...... 10 v. Dominant Environmental Processes ...... 13 vi. Significant Species ...... 17 2. Biodiversity Targets and Associated Threats ...... 22 i. Conservation Targets ...... 22 ii. Threats ...... 26 3. Objectives and Strategies ...... 39 i. Conservation Objectives ...... 39 ii. Strategic Actions and Action Steps ...... 41 References ...... 52 Appendix A. Elgin County Greenway Mapping Methodology ...... 54 Appendix B. Natural Heritage Designations ...... 57 Appendix C. Recommended Activities in Selected SAR Recovery Strategies ...... 60 Appendix D. Species-specific Threats to Elgin Greenway SAR ...... 63

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. General location of the Elgin Greenway CAP Area ...... 1 Figure 1.2. Elgin Greenway CAP Area...... 6 Figure 1.3. Kettle Creek, one of several creeks…that drain into Lake Erie ...... 7 Figure 1.4. Rapidly eroding bluffs along the Lake Erie shoreline ...... 9 Figure 1.5. Deciduous forest at Bayham Ravine, East Elgin ...... 11 Figure 1.6. Clearville Creek ...... 15 Figure 1.7. Topography and major streams in the Elgin Greenway CAP area...... 16 Figure 1.8. The threatened False Rue-anemone ...... 17 Figure 1.9. Roads fragment habitat and cause animal mortality ...... 26

List of Tables

Table 1.1. Summary of Population Information in the Elgin Greenway CAP area ...... 3 Table 1.2. Natural Heritage Designations – Elgin Greenway CAP area ...... 10 Table 1.3. Globally and Provincially Rare Vegetation Communities ...... 12 Table 1.4. Significant Species – Elgin Greenway CAP Area ...... 17 Table 1.5. Conservation Targets ...... 22 Table 1.6. Conservation Target Viability ...... 24 Table 1.7. Summary of Threats – Elgin Greenway CAP ...... 27 Table 1.8. Additional Comments on Sources of Threats ...... 33

iii Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan (CAP)

PLAN AUTHOR(S) Name Role Organization Email

Jalava, Jarmo Coordinator, Ecosystem Carolinian Canada Coalition [email protected] Recovery Program Caveney, Stanley Past President Thames Talbot Land Trust [email protected] Carabetta, Mark Conservation Science Manager Ontario Nature Donley, Rhonda Conservation Action Planning Carolinian Canada Coalition [email protected] Daria Koscinski Conservation Action Planning Carolinian Canada Coalition [email protected]

CAP Team and Contributors:

Ron Allenson, Otter Valley Field Naturalists Irene Bouris, St. Thomas Field Naturalists Club Jane Bowles, Thames Talbot Land Trust Amber Cowie, Ontario Nature Mark Carabetta, Ontario Nature Ron Casier, Elgin Stewardship Council / St. Thomas Field Naturalists Club Stan Caveney, Thames Talbot Land Trust Eric Cleland, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources / Elgin Stewardship Council Chris Dancey, National Farmers Union Graham Decow, Elgin Stewardship Council Tony Difazio, Catfish Creek Conservation Authority Rhonda Donley, Carolinian Canada Coalition Jennifer Dow, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Dan Dufour, Carolinian Canada Coalition Cliff Evanitski, Long Point Region Conservation Authority Steve Evans, Elgin County Paul Gagnon, Long Point Region Conservation Authority John Glass, Otter Valley Field Naturalists Don Gordon, Thames Talbot Land Trust Ron Gould, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Jarmo Jalava, Carolinian Canada Coalition Catherine Jong, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Don Miller, Elgin Federation of Agriculture Said Mohamed, Carolinian Canada Coalition Cathy Quinlan, Thames Talbot Land Trust Kim Smale, Catfish Creek Conservation Authority Joe Stephenson, Otter Valley Field Naturalists Steve Timmermans, Thames Talbot Land Trust Valerie Towsley, Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority Brian Widner, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Joshua Wise, Ontario Nature

CAP Team members indicated in bold.

The following individuals or organisations have contributed to the development of the Elgin Greenway CAP, but have not attended the workshops:

Wendy Cridland, The Nature Conservancy of Canada Jerry Campbell, Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority Mark Emery, Elgin Stewardship Council Roberta Gillard, Elgin Federation of Agriculture Andrea Hebb, The Nature Conservancy of Canada Megan Ihrig, Carolinian Canada Coalition John St. Pierre Ed Ketchabaw, Elgin Federation of Agriculture Elizabeth Van Hooren, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority

Thank you to the CAP team and contributors.

v Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan

ELGIN GREENWAY CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN i. BACKGROUND & RATIONALE

Conservation Action Planning in Canada’s Carolinian Life Zone

Elgin County is situated in the heart of Ecoregion 7E, an area extending from Toronto to Grand Bend, south to Niagara Falls and the western Lake Erie islands. This ecoregion is colloquially known as Canada’s “Carolinian life zone”, or simply “Carolinian Canada” because many plants and animals found in the eastern United States as far south as the Carolinas reach their northern limit in this part of Ontario.

The Carolinian life zone occupies less than 0.25% of Canada’s landmass, yet it provides habitat for over 40% of Canada’s plant species and an equally large proportion of vertebrate and invertebrate fauna. At the same time, one quarter of Canada’s human population lives in the region, the nation’s industrial and economic heartland. As a result, extensive conversion to human land uses has occurred. In southern Ontario, 94% of upland forests were cleared over the past two centuries, while more than 70% of all pre- settlement wetlands have been converted, and up to 99% of prairies and savannahs have been lost.

On a heavily-modified working landscape such as this, habitat fragmentation has reduced most natural areas to sizes much smaller than is required to maintain basic ecological functions and diverse, resilient biological communities. Overall, natural cover across the Carolinian life zone now ranges from less than 7% in some areas to below 18% in others, with Elgin County falling between these two extremes. These high levels of land conversion mean that many of the essential ecological processes needed for healthy soils, clean water and clean air have been severely compromised.

For these reasons, combined with the fact that many of the species found here are near the northern limits of their distribution, the ecoregion has the greatest number and concentration of Species At Risk (SAR) in Canada. At least 50 of them occur in Elgin County. More than 500 additional plant and animal species found in the zone are recognized to be at some level of risk, and many of these are just as threatened as “official” SAR but have not yet gone through the legislative process required to designate them. If historical trends continue, more and more species will end up designated as SAR, resulting in greater costs to protect them and increased regulatory demands on rural landowners.

The Carolinian Woodlands Recovery Team (CWRT), made up of representatives from various levels of government, non-government organisations, the academic research community and the private sector, was established in 2004 to address the recovery needs of the many woodland plant species that are at risk in the ecoregion. The CWRT recognized that many SAR occupy similar habitats and face similar threats. The CWRT also noted that there is an array of agencies and groups with an interest in conserving and enhancing the ecological health of the landscape of southern Ontario, and that often these organisations are working independently and not in a particularly coordinated or collaborative fashion—a situation that potentially compromises the effective utilization of limited funding and resources.

While some species face threats requiring species-specific actions, taking a broad ecosystem-based approach for Ontario’s Carolinian woodlands was considered to be the most efficient and proactive way to improve the chances of recovery of entire suites of species and their habitats. To address the need for large-scale “natural heritage system” planning, since 2000 the Carolinian Canada Coalition (CCC) has been promoting a “Big Picture” vision for the ecoregion, a map-based network of core natural areas and connecting corridors (http://www.carolinian.org/ConservationPrograms_BigPicture.htm). And

vi Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan between 2006 and 2008, a draft National Recovery Strategy for Carolinian Woodland Ecosystems and Associated Species At Risk (CWRS) was developed by the CWRT (Jalava et al. 2008). Recovery goals were set at the ecosystem level in order to address the threats to the ecological processes that support biodiversity “hotspots”, SAR and their habitat, significant vegetation communities and natural areas. Restoring natural connectivity to such a network of core areas was deemed essential, as it would allow for genetic exchange between populations, adaptation and migration in response to climate change, and provide corridors for movement of wide-ranging species.

Strategies to address threats, recover habitats, and to monitor and evaluate recovery efforts were outlined in considerable detail. Ecosystem recovery would be directed along the following themes:

 refinement of the map-based template for an ecologically functioning network of core areas and corridors;  better coordination of recovery efforts, with broad participation from agencies and stakeholders;  improvements in databases, knowledge and understanding of Carolinian sites, SAR occurrences, and the biological needs of SAR;  long term monitoring of sites, species and social trends;  improvements in policy and legislation relating to conservation at all levels of government;  net increases in overall woodland extent, average core area sizes, extent of forest interior, landscape connectivity, and extent of landscape protected through securement, easements, stewardship agreements and conservation plans;  measurable reductions in threats to critical sites;  improvement in population sizes, numbers of extant occurrences and habitat quality for SAR;  significant increases in landowner participation in stewardship programs and incentives;  municipalities applying natural heritage system design in official plans;  enhanced public awareness and support for recovery of Carolinian ecosystems;  community-based action plans developed for “biodiversity hotspots” to strategically implement ecosystem recovery objectives.

An Internationally-recognized Approach to Conservation Planning

It was determined that the Nature Conservancy (U.S.) Conservation Action Plan (CAP) approach (http://www.conservationgateway.org/topic/conservation-action-planning) would best address these themes strategically and efficiently. The approach has been developed and refined over three decades throughout the world by a remarkable diversity of jurisdictions and organisations, including The Nature Conservancy of Canada (e.g., Southern Norfolk Sand Plain Natural Area Conservation Plan). CAPs are tailored to the specific characteristics and needs of ecologically-important landscapes. By applying this approach to biodiversity “hotspots” in the Carolinian life zone, ultimately a network of linked conservation practitioners and action plans for each target landscape in the Carolinian life zone would be created. This network would:

 Address the urgent needs of priority SAR;  Prevent increased numbers of species from being listed as SAR;  Link SAR recovery strategies to watershed plans, official plans and a range of other key land use strategies and planning efforts;  Heighten awareness, improve attitudes, and garner additional resources towards the recovery of species, communities and ecosystems at risk;  Enhance community engagement in building a sustainable culture.

vii Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan

Identifying Biodiversity Hotspots

In 2007, a sophisticated analysis was undertaken in partnership between Carolinian Canada Coalition (CCC), The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), Environment Canada (EC) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to identify the “biodiversity hotspots” in southern Ontario, based on the best available information on the occurrences and concentrations of rare species and natural communities. A map was developed that identified at least fifteen such areas. This map would serve as the template for targeting efforts on areas within the life zone where the greatest return on investment would be gained.

Two of the fifteen areas (Western Erie Islands and Southern Norfolk Sand Plain) had action plans already being developed or implemented by NCC, while another (Skunks Misery) had an action plan that was being implemented by the Thames Talbot Land Trust in collaboration with the NCC. In 2008/2009, the CCC initiated the development of CAPs for six additional priority areas (Essex Forests and Wetlands; Ausable River – Pinery; Upper Thames River, Hamilton – Burlington and Short Hills and Niagara River Corridor) with an array of local stakeholder groups, agencies and organisations, including conservation authorities, First Nations, agricultural organisations, provincial and federal government agencies, non- government organisations, naturalist clubs and municipalities.

The Elgin Greenway Mapping Initiative

Concurrently with the development of Conservation Action Plans in the Carolinian life zone, Ontario Nature (ON), the province’s largest non-profit conservation organisation, was developing “Greenway” mapping (http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/habitat/greenway_initiative.php) for other key landscapes in southern Ontario (e.g., Grey-Bruce). An extension of CCC’s “Big Picture” vision, ON’s Greenway initiatives are focused on protecting and restoring a connected landscape of key natural areas, or "cores," linked together through natural passageways, or "corridors”. According to ON, successfully connecting these cores and corridors will:

 protect and restore large areas of natural heritage;  ensure water systems remain clean and intact;  provide and protect habitat for wildlife and species at risk;  connect farmers, conservationists and communities; and,  keep natural areas healthy for present and future generations; thereby aligning perfectly with the objectives of the recovery initiative for Carolinian Canada’s ecosystems.

In late 2009, the Thames Talbot Land Trust (TTLT) discussed the concept of developing a “Greenway” map for Elgin County with ON to help identify and prioritize areas in which TTLT would focus their land securement efforts, particularly in the ecologically significant corridor along the Lake Erie coastline, known as the “Erie Ravines”. ON agreed that Elgin County would benefit from a Greenway mapping exercise, particularly in light of the fact that such mapping could help inform the Official Plan renewal process that was underway at the municipality.

viii Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan

The Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan

At the same time, additional synergies emerged in discussions between TTLT and CCC, in which these parties concluded that a conservation action plan (CAP) would be the ideal complement to the Greenway mapping, in that the CAP would identify and prioritize the conservation activities to be implemented within the Greenway context. In other words, the Elgin Greenway map would show where conservation work would best be done, and the CAP would identify and prioritize what would best be done and by whom, in order for conservation work to be most effective and efficient. In this regard, the CAP would build on the existing Elgin Landscape Strategy (Elgin Stewardship Council 2005).

A steering committee was convened in April 2010, consisting of representatives from TTLT, ON, CCC, Catfish Creek Conservation Authority, Long Point Region Conservation Authority, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority, Elgin Stewardship Council and Otter Valley Field Naturalists. The committee was introduced to the Greenway mapping and CAP methodologies, and the group discussed mapping options, roles and levels of involvement of the organisations present, and other stakeholders that should be invited to contribute to the process. There was broad support for the initiative, and widespread agreement that the agricultural community, the main landowners and stewards of the area, needed to be actively engaged in the process. Additional partners became involved, and each of the following organisations contributed to the development of the Greenway mapping and CAP in the meetings and workshops that ensued over the next 18 months: National Farmer’s Union, Elgin Federation of Agriculture, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, St. Thomas Field Naturalists Club, Elgin County and the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority.

This report represents the results of the two-year planning process, which has drawn from the expertise and knowledge of a large and diverse group of local stakeholders. The long-term benefits of this approach include:

 Mapping tools are available to guide and prioritise site stewardship and ecological restoration activities in Elgin County.  Resources and funding can be targeted toward the most important projects, activities and sites as identified through a consensus-based multi-stakeholder approach;  Multiple agencies, organisations and local groups can work collaboratively and efficiently to recover and steward healthy ecosystems, particularly in the highest priority areas;  Information on Best Management Practices for species and habitats can be widely shared, and community knowledge and capacity will be enhanced.

The Elgin Greenway mapping and the Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan essentially provide a workbook designed to help guide conservation activities and serve the community and stakeholder groups in the following ways:

 Landowner outreach, education, stewardship, restoration and site securement by conservation authorities, Thames Talbot Land Trust, Elgin Stewardship Council and other agencies and groups, can be targeted on the areas where the greatest ecological benefits will be gained;  Conservation and recovery activities are prioritized based on sound science combined with the best local knowledge;  Better coordinated, collaborative project proposals and funding applications, leading to greater likelihood of funding approval;  Reduced duplication and competition for limited resources amongst the various agencies, groups and organisations;

ix Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan

 Clearly identified tasks and roles (developed on the basis of collaborative expertise) in conservation projects;  Improved ability to measure progress and monitor results thanks to a mutually agreed-upon set of priorities and tasks;  Greater transparency in conservation effort and greater buy-in from the community due to the collaborative nature of the approach.

This long-term, multi-faceted, targeted, coordinated approach will result in more vibrant, resilient ecosystems, healthier habitats and enhanced viability of flora and fauna across Elgin County. Recovery of the ecosystems will not only serve the needs of SAR and other imperiled species, but will contribute to climate change adaptation and enhanced ecosystem services. Healthy ecosystems correlate directly to cleaner water and air, productive soils, sustainable agriculture, and enhanced tourism and recreational opportunities. Ultimately, this initiative aims to build more prosperous communities, healthier citizens, and improved quality of life in Elgin County and across the deep south of Ontario.

Next Steps

This report and the associated mapping represent a template for conservation action that has been agreed upon by its developers, the Elgin Greenway CAP Development Team (listed on page iv). Objectives and strategic actions are described in detail in Section 3.

In order for the recommended activities to be undertaken strategically and effectively, and with the support of the collaborating organisations, the Elgin Greenway Steering Committee will continue to guide the project.

The Steering Committee will meet at least twice annually: 1. early in the fiscal year (April/May) when external funding allocations are known (to develop a concrete workplan for the year); 2. in the fall or early winter to review progress, plan for the following year, and apply for additional funding/support as needed. Additional meetings, conference calls, will be held as needed.

x Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan

1. CONSERVATION CONTEXT

A. CONTEXT

1.i. GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

The Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan (CAP) area covers 188,100 ha (1,881 km2) of land north of the central portion of Lake Erie, encompassing all of Elgin County (Figure 1.1). The Natural Area is part of Ontario’s Ecodistrict 7E-2 (Figure 1.1.). The CAP area boundaries were developed through the Elgin Greenway mapping analysis undertaken by Ontario Nature (Carabetta and Cowie pers. comm. 2010, see appendix A for methodology), with the input of the CAP team and other participating organisations listed above. The CAP area includes portions of the Thames River, Otter Creek, Catfish Creek, Kettle Creek and watersheds. Parts of Southwest Oxford, Southwest Middlesex, London, Middlesex Centre, Chatham-Kent and Norfolk County are contained within a 10 km buffer that is mapped around the Elgin Greenway CAP area.

Figure 1.1. General location of the Elgin Greenway CAP Area

ii. HISTORICAL, CULTURAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT

Elgin County lies within the traditional hunting territory of the Attawandaron (a.k.a. Attiwandaronk or Neutral) aboriginal peoples whose main population until the 1600’s was centred in southern Ontario east of the Grand River in the Niagara Peninsula – Hamilton area. Reville (1920) provides a remarkably detailed, albeit perhaps somewhat embellished, impression of the natural and cultural landscape of Attawandaron territory prior to European settlement, based on historic accounts:

According to records left by Father Daillon, as translated by Dean Harris, no part of the American continent furnished a more healthy or luxuriant growth of staple timbers than the entire Attawandaron area. The great American pine, reaching to the height of sixty or seventy feet yielded large quantities of gum that served the Indian for seaming his canoe, and dressing his wounds and sores. Cedars, firs and spruce grew side by side with the tamarack and hemlock. All over were to be found magnificent growths of maple, birch, beech and linden, or basswood. The oak, ash and elm with the walnut tree and swamp maple furnished a safe retreat for a variety of wild animals which have long since disappeared.

Aspens of all sorts on which the beavers fed, basswood that furnished valuable wood for preserving the Indian grain, and a species of hemlock out of which he made his rope, grew at convenient distances from each village. Chestnuts, mulberry and hazel trees grew side by side with the elder, hawthorne and plum. Willows and alders drooped over the winding streams. Wild fruit trees of vast variety, gooseberry, currant and other fruit producing bushes, covered the sides of the sloping hills. The raspberry, strawberry and blackberry plants, and wild vines rich in their wealth of grapes, furnished to the Indians in season, abundance and variety of…luxuries. Through this rank and luxurious growth of timber, vine, bush, and plant, there roamed countless numbers of animals of great variety and many species. Here in their native forest roamed the elk, caribou and black bear; deer, wolves, foxes, martens and wild cats filled the woods, the porcupine, ground hog, hares of different species, squirrels of great variety, including the almost extinct flying squirrel, were everywhere. Every stream gave hospitable shelter to the beaver, the otter and the muskrat, while weasels, moles and field mice burrowed under almost every tree. Snakes of various kinds, lizards of differing hues, frogs innumerable, added to the life of this wondrous land. The lakes, ponds and rivers were alive with swans, brant geese, wild geese, cranes, ducks, teal, divers of innumerable kinds, ernes [possibly Osprey, or Bald Eagle], bitterns, herons, white pelicans and trumpeter swans.

Birds of varied plumage, the eagle, the wild turkey and different kinds of partridge filled the woods. Enormous flocks of wild pigeons, starlings, thrushes, robins and ortolans [finches] darkened the heavens when in flight; swallows, martins, jays and magpies, owls of many species, humming birds innumerable and myriads of plover and snipe added variety and life to a land already rich in everything that could tempt the covetousness of man. The streams, rivers and lakes furnished vast varieties of fish, on which the cormorant, and gull feasted with the indigenous [people]. Such was the land and such the opulence of animal and vegetable life that lay in the possession of the great Neutral tribe.

They numbered in the neighbourhood of 20,000 to 30,000 souls as late as 1640, notwithstanding that for three years they had suffered severely from war, famine and sickness, they were able to send into the field four thousand fighting men. They were a sedentary people, living for the most part in villages, which were constructed with considerable skill. The men cut down the trees and cleared the land for sowing while the women did the seeding, weeding, the reaping and harvesting…[Women] molded the earthen pots, spun twine from hemp, wove the rush mats and made fishing nets…extracted oil from fish and the sunflower, embroidered moccasins with quills of hedgehog [porcupine], tilled the fields and bore burdens of the chase. The Neutrals…utilized herbs, sassafras roots and barks of certain trees for medicinal purposes.

Perhaps the best archaeological example of First Nation settlement in Elgin is found at the Southwold Prehistoric Earthworks, near St. Thomas, which was recognized as a National Historic Site in 1923 and is now under the care of Parks Canada (Parks Canada 2011). The earthworks are the only visible remains of a native village of about 800 to 900 people, inhabited around 1500 A.D. The 2.2 ha site is situated in an

area of fertile farmland, once the western portion of the Attiwandaron Nation, which stretched from Kent County to the Niagara Peninsula.

By the mid- to late 1800’s, the natural vegetation of much of Southern Ontario had been cleared by European settlers (Langman 1971). Today, over 80% of Ecodistrict 7E-2, in which the Elgin Greenway CAP is found, has been converted to agriculture (756,586 ha), with an additional 11,046 ha having been altered for residential, industrial and infrastructure uses (Henson and Brodribb 2005). Only about 16% of 7E-2 remains naturally-vegetated, most of this being forest (Henson and Brodribb 2005).

Approximately 85% (1,593 km2) of Elgin County was reported as farmland in 2006 (Statistics Canada 2007). The rich soils are ideal for growing a wide variety of crops. These are primarily but not limited to, corn, soybeans and wheat, as well as fruits and vegetables near St. Thomas, and tobacco on the sandy soils in the east part of the county. The lake-moderated climate provides long growing seasons and relatively mild winters, and, in most years, adequate rainfall.

The population of Elgin County in 2006 was 85,351, for a density of 45.4/km2. Of this total, 62.9% lived in urban centres and 37.1% were in rural households. The Elgin Greenway CAP area includes one city (St. Thomas), one town (Aylmer) and many small communities (Table 1.1). Communities within the Elgin Greenway CAP area include the City of St. Thomas (population 36,110), and the smaller towns of Aylmer (7,069), Dutton/Dunwich (Wallacetown) (3,821), Port Stanley (2,115), Belmont (1,885), West Lorne (1,419), and a number of villages with populations of approximately 1,000 or less, including Rodney, Port Bruce, Port Burwell and Vienna. Outside the few main centres the population density is low (<20/km2) reflecting the largely rural nature of the CAP area.

Table 1.1. Summary of Population Information in the Elgin Greenway CAP area Only centres within the CAP area are included; all information is from the 2006 census (Statistics Canada 2007). Name Population 2001-2006 Population Density % of Dwellings as Population Change (persons/km2) Secondary Homes (%) St. Thomas 36,110 +8.4 1,017.7 3.3 Aylmer 7,069 -1.2 1,135.7 3.5 Dutton/Dunwich 3,821 +3.4 13.0 4.5 (Wallacetown) Central Elgin 12,723 +3.5 45.4 6.6 Municipality (includes Port Stanley, Belmont) West Elgin 5,349 -2.1 16.6 6.2 Municipality (includes West Lorne, Rodney) Malahide 8,828 +0.6 22.3 5.6 Township (includes Port Bruce) Bayham 6,727 +5.5 27.5 4.8 Municipality (includes Port Burwell, Vienna) Southwold 4,724 +5.3 15.7 1.8 Township

The main industry today in Elgin County is manufacturing, concentrated in St. Thomas. Other major employers include business services, health care and social services, retail trade, agriculture, and “other services” (Statistics Canada 2007).

The shores of Lake Erie are desirable locations for cottages, water activities, nature appreciation and camping. Several port towns (Port Stanley, Port Burwell, Port Bruce, Port Glasgow) and three provincial parks (Port Bruce, Port Burwell, John E. Pearce) along Lake Erie offer recreational activities such as boating, fishing, hiking, camping and beaches. Elgin County is locally known as “the railway capital of Canada” attracting many tourists to visit historical sites and to ride some of Ontario’s oldest railways.

iii. ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT

Carolinian Canada

The Elgin Greenway CAP area is located in the south-central portion of Ecoregion 7E, colloquially known as the Carolinian life zone of Canada, which falls south of a line running between Grand Bend and Toronto. This life zone encompasses the northernmost edge of the deciduous forest region of eastern North America, and though smaller than other Canadian ecological zones (0.25% of Canadian land area), it has greater numbers of species of flora and fauna than any other ecosystem in Canada (Norfolk Environmental Advisory Committee 2006). This zone is characterized by mainly deciduous-dominated forests including some conifer species [e.g., Eastern Red-cedar (Juniperus virginiana), White Pine (Pinus strobus)], as well as many southern trees at their northern range limits such as Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), along with shrubs and herbaceous species not found in other parts of Canada (Lindsay 1984). Over 2,200 plant species, 70 native tree species, and more than half of all Canadian bird species can be found in Carolinian Canada (Solymár et al. 2008).

Ecodistrict 7E-2

Within Ecoregion 7E is Ecodistrict (formerly, Ecological Site District) 7E-2 (Chatham), the largest ecodistrict in the ecoregion, extending from the Long Point – Norfolk County area west to Chatham and Grand Bend (reviewed in detail in Henson and Brodribb 2005). This ecodistrict consists predominantly of sand plains, with some kame moraines. Approximately 16% of the ecodistrict remains naturally- vegetated, most of this being forest. Sand plain deciduous forest complex comprises 43% of this remaining natural cover, followed by clay plain deciduous forest complexes and till plain forest complexes, each with 14% of the remaining natural cover. Another 12% of the remaining natural cover is wetland, with two-thirds composed of swamp complexes. There are also 2,430 ha of prairies and savannahs remaining in 7E-2, approximately 68% of the total area of all remnants known in southern Ontario. Over 80% of 7E-2 has been converted to agriculture (756,586 ha), with an additional 11,046 ha of residential, industrial and infrastructure development.

Despite the widespread conversion of natural cover, Ecodistrict 7E-2 remains biologically diverse, with among the highest numbers of globally rare species and communities in Ontario (Henson and Brodribb 2005). More than 60 COSEWIC Species At Risk (SAR) are found in the ecodistrict. Despite its high conservation value, conservation lands make up only approximately 4% of the total area of the Ecodistrict 7E-2 (39,875 ha). Provincially significant life science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) account for nearly half of this, with a total of 18,517 hectares (2% of the ecodistrict). Forty-three percent of all documented occurrences of species and vegetation community targets in 7E-2 are within identified conservation lands; more than half of these are within provincially significant life science ANSIs. Six of the 27 significant vegetation communities identified within 7E-2 are globally rare (dunes, savannahs and

tallgrass prairie), 14 are provincially rare, and 12 are considered to be high-quality representative vegetation communities that are important to conservation.

Elgin Greenway CAP Area

The Elgin Greenway CAP area extends across the central part of Lake Erie’s north coast (188,100 ha, Figure 1.2). Elgin County is entirely within the CAP but mapping includes an additional 10 km buffer into neighbouring Kent, Oxford, Middlesex and Norfolk counties to display landscape connectivity with natural features in adjacent municipalities (e.g. watersheds, natural areas). The northern boundary of the CAP area is the Thames River, the second largest river in southern Ontario, home to one of the most diverse faunal assemblages within the Great Lakes drainage (Cudmore et al. 2004). Several smaller rivers and streams within the CAP area (Figure 1.3) drain into Lake Erie, which forms its southern boundary. Forests are the dominant ecosystems in the Elgin Greenway CAP area, but wetland and prairie habitats of high conservation value also occur.

Physiography and Glacial History

The Elgin Greenway CAP overlaps with four physiographic regions of southern Ontario: the Mount Elgin Ridges in the northeast are surrounded to the west and east by Ekfrid Clay Plains, with Bothwell Sand Plains in the west and Norfolk Sand Plains in the east (Chapman and Putnam 1984). The bedrock of the Elgin Greenway CAP dates to the middle Devonian consisting of softer sedimentary limestones, shales and sandstone. This softer material was greatly eroded by advance and recession of glaciers through the area in the last major glaciation. During the recession of the Wisconsinan glacier, much of the Elgin Greenway CAP area was under glacial lakes.

The majority of the Lake Erie shore contains high bluffs (up to 40 m in height) with the creeks cutting deep, steep sided but usually flat-floored gullies as they flow toward the lake. The shoreline here is receding and the gullies are constantly growing upslope (Figure 1.4).

Mount Elgin Ridges The Mount Elgin Ridges are a succession of ridges and vales found between the Thames Valley and the Norfolk Sand Plain (Chapman and Putnam 1984). The ridges are moraines deposited during the recession of the Wisconsinan glacier and reach 305 masl in the northeast corner of the CAP (Figure 1.2). The ridges are typically clay or silty clay while the vales contain alluvium of gravel, sand or silt (Chapman and Putnam 1984). The ridges are well drained and well-aerated allowing prosperous agriculture, while the vales are poorly drained. This area forms the divide between the Thames River system and the south flowing rivers that flow into Lake Erie (e.g. Kettle Creek, Catfish Creek).

Ekfrid Clay Plain The nearly level Ekrid Clay Plain is found to the west and east of the Mount Elgin Ridges (Chapman and Putnam 1984). Some areas of clay are superimposed by silty sediments leading to very good agricultural soils (e.g. near Fingal, Elgin County) and most natural vegetation in this physiographic region has been cleared (Kanter et al. 1993). Knolls and low smooth ridges of sand and gravel can also be found throughout the area.

Figure 1.2. Elgin Greenway CAP Area.

Photo: Stan Caveney Figure 1.3. Kettle Creek, one of several creeks in Elgin County that drain into Lake Erie

Bothwell Sand Plain The southern portion of the Bothwell Sand Plain, south of the Thames River, is found within the western half of the CAP. The area was the former delta of the Thames River as it joined the glacial Lake Warren (Chapman and Putnam 1984). The sand is spread thinly over clay resulting in water accumulation above the clay layer. Many depressions in the area are very moist creating swamp complexes. The generally level topography results in a large floodplain where the Thames River flows, although a few deeply cut valleys are clearly visible. The Bothwell Sand Plain has generally high agricultural value (Class 3 agricultural lands), with a high water table.

Norfolk Sand Plain The eastern portion of the CAP is within the large Norfolk Sand Plain. The sands and silts of this area were deposited by the Grand River as it flowed into glacial Lakes Whittlesey and Warren, resulting in a delta built from west to east (Chapman and Putnam 1984). The topography is generally flat with some steep valleys cut by rivers flowing towards Lake Erie (e.g. Otter Creek). The well drained soils drew farmers to the area early but many found that the fine layer of sand on the surface is prone to wind erosion once vegetation is cleared. Tobacco became the most common crop grown in Norfolk County between the 1960’s and early 1980’s, but most of these farms have converted to other cash crops or non-agricultural uses.

Biodiversity

The Elgin Greenway CAP is situated in one of the southernmost portions of Canada and is home to a remarkable diversity of southern flora and fauna, many of them at the northern limits of their ranges. Despite the fact that much of the area has undergone conversion to agricultural and urban land uses, a total of at least 129 species of breeding birds, 16 reptiles, 16 amphibians, 33 mammals, 79 butterflies and more than 1500 plants have been recorded in Elgin County (Kanter et al. 1993). The area provides habitat

for at least 50 extant terrestrial and aquatic Species at Risk (SAR), with another 17 SAR having occurred historically. Several globally and provincially rare ecological communities also occur (e.g. Moist - Fresh Tallgrass Prairie Type, Dry Tallgrass Prairie Type).

Southern vegetation types in the area include forests dominated by Chinquapin Oak (Quercus muhlenbergii), Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) – Red Elm (Ulmus rubra), Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata), Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) and Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides). Southern plant species include trees such as Sassafras (Sassafras albidum), Black Oak (Quercus velutina), American Chestnut (Castanea dentata), Eastern Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida) and Red Mulberry (Morus rubra). Many southern herbaceous plants, sedges and grasses also reach their northern limits in this area. Prairie ecosystems are rare in Elgin County and those remnants that exist are small and disjunct (Kanter et al.1993). Typical prairie species include Big Bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Little Bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Indian Grass (Sorghastrum nutans), Dense Blazing-star (Liatris spicata) and Butterfly Weed (Asclepias tuberosa).

Characteristic southern fauna of the area include breeding birds such as Red-bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), Tufted Titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina), Yellow- breasted Chat (Icteria virens) and Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurious) (Kanter et al. 1993, Cadman et al. 2005), and mammals such as Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Southern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys volans) and Woodland Vole (Mictrotus pinetorum) (Kanter et al. 1993).

Forests Deciduous forests were the dominant ecosystem historically in the Elgin Greenway CAP area. Only approximately 10% forest cover remains in the CAP. Nonetheless, these forests maintain more than 30 SAR such as the Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens, Endangered), American Badger (Taxidea taxus, Endangered), Eastern Flowering Dogwood (Endangered), Crooked-stem Aster (Symphyotrichum prenanthoides, Threatened), Spoon-leaved Moss (Bryoandersonia illecebra, Endangered), and Drooping Trillium (Trillium flexipes, Endangered).

Rivers, Marshes and Wetlands Wetlands and rivers are major features in the Elgin Greenway CAP. A portion of the Thames River and several streams that flow into Lake Erie support aquatic SAR such as the Spiny Softshell Turtle (Apalone spinifera spinifera, Threatened), Northern Madtom (Noturus stigmosus, Endangered) and Eastern Sand Darter (Ammocrypta pellucida, Threatened). Wetlands form a substantial part of the CAP, with 1,820 hectares of the CAP being Provincially Significant Wetland. Most of Southern Ontario wetlands have been drained (Snell 1987), hence the remaining wetlands provide a refuge for many SAR. Reptiles such as snakes and turtles are particularly dependent on wetlands and many reptile SAR are found in the wetlands of the CAP [e.g. Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii, Threatened), Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata, Endangered), Eastern Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon platyrhinos, Threatened), Eastern Foxsnake (Pantherophis gloydi, Endangered)].

Prairies and Savannahs Prairies and savannahs are a rare ecosystem in Southern Ontario and few natural remnants remain (Bakowsky and Riley 1994). The Elgin Greenway CAP has small pockets of prairie and savannah ecosystems, which support SAR such as the Dense Blazing-star (Threatened), Colicroot (Aletris farinosa, Threatened), Willowleaf Aster (Symphyotrichum praealtus, Threatened), and nesting Eastern Ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus, Special Concern). One of the largest intact prairies in southern Ontario is found in Elgin County (Dutton-Dunwich Prairie, 10 hectares).

Lake Erie Shoreline A prominent feature of the Elgin Greenway CAP is the Lake Erie Shoreline running along the southern boundary of the CAP area. The associated river, wetland and forest habitats support many migratory birds and insects in addition to resident species. Most of the shoreline is steep bluffs but the few areas of sandy coastline (e.g. Port Burwell Provincial Park) support rare dune and marsh ecosystems (Kanter et al.1993).

Photo: John St. Pierre Figure 1.4. Rapidly eroding bluffs along the Lake Erie shoreline

Natural Areas

The Elgin Greenway CAP area contains many natural areas of various sizes and designations that support the remaining natural cover. Approximately 14% of the CAP area is within protected or designated natural areas. Most protected areas are small and distributed throughout the CAP area but significant tracts of protected lands are present, often associated with swamps or stream valleys that are unsuitable for agricultural purposes. Various natural heritage designations apply to these natural areas, as summarized in Table 1.2. For a more complete list of the Natural Heritage sites in the Elgin Greenway CAP area, please see Appendix B.

Table 1.2. Natural Heritage Designations – Elgin Greenway CAP area Designation IUCN Area in Percentage Reference Protected hectares (acres) of Natural Area Area Management Category1 Conservation Authority Area II 863 3.2 Various CA’s Provincial Parks II 301 1.1 Ontario Parks Earth Science Area of Natural and VI 1,695 6.4 NHIC 2011 Scientific Interest Provincial Life Science Area of VI 1,619 6.1 NHIC 2011 Natural and Scientific Interest Regional Life Science Area of Natural N/A 790 3.0 NHIC 2011 and Scientific Interest Life Science Site N/A 4,881 18.3 NHIC 2011 Locally Significant Life Science Site N/A 265 1.0 NHIC 2011 Provincially Significant Wetland VI 1,820 6.8 NHIC 2011 Other Wetland N/A 741 2.8 NHIC 2011 Carolinian Canada Site N/A 204 0.8 NHIC 2011 International Biological Program Site N/A 137 0.5 NHIC 2011 Important Bird Areas N/A 13,595 51.0 NHIC 2011 TOTAL 26,611 1 IUCN Categories: Ia. Nature Reserve or wilderness area nature reserve*; Ib. Wilderness area*; II. National/provincial park*; III. Natural monument; IV. Habitat/species management areas, V. Protected landscape or seascape, VI. Managed resource protected areas; * Strictly regulated protected areas. Some areas may have more than one IUCN category because of internal zoning.

iv. NATURAL COVER / ECOSYSTEM TYPES

Twenty-seven vegetation communities have been identified within ecodistrict 7E-2 (Henson and Brodribb 2005). Of these, nine are forest types, eleven are wetlands (swamps or marshes), and seven are prairies, savannahs, grasslands or open woodlands. Eastern Deciduous Forests are the dominant ecosystem with pockets of other types of communities dispersed throughout where conditions are appropriate. Elements of the more northern Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Forest Region are found in the area as well (e.g. Eastern White Cedar).

As noted, only about 10% of pre-settlement forest remains in the Elgin Greenway CAP area (Kanter et al.1993). The different physiographic regions support slightly different assemblages of plants and hence different vegetation communities. Deeply incised stream valleys, especially in the Norfolk Sand Plain, provide a variety of conditions resulting in floodplain, bottomland, ravine slope, and upland, tableland and valley rim communities. Floodplain forests are typified by Black Maple, American Beech, White Ash and White Elm. Valley and slope forests are represented by variants of Sugar Maple – American Beech forests (Figure 1.5).

Photo: Stan Caveney Figure 1.5. Deciduous forest at Bayham Ravine, East Elgin

The cool ravines in eastern Elgin host some species with northern affinities, including Eastern White Pine and Eastern Hemlock, but these species are rare to absent in the western part of the county. Tableland, valley rim and upper slope communities are typically represented by Sugar Maple, American Beech, and White Ash, sometimes with Red Oak. Two potentially rare forest types are found in Elgin County: Moist - Fresh Sugar Maple - Black Maple Deciduous Forest Type (G? S3?) and Dry - Fresh Mixed Oak Deciduous Forest Type (G? S3S4) (table 1.3).

The poor drainage of the Bothwell Sand Plain results in wet-mesic forests and swamps. These wet forest communities are usually dominated by Silver Maple forming associations with a variety of other species. The rare Buttonbush Organic Thicket Swamp Type (G4 S3) and Poison Sumac Organic Thicket Swamp Type (G4? S3) occur in Elgin County (table 1.3).

Only small remnant prairie habitats remain in Elgin County representing some of the rarest ecosystems in southern Ontario. Pockets of prairie are scattered throughout the CAP area. Typical species include Big Bluestem, Little Bluestem, Indian Grass, Dense Blazing-star and Butterfly Weed. Two globally and provincially rare grassland ecosystems occur in the CAP area: Moist - Fresh Tallgrass Prairie Type (G2, S1) and Dry Tallgrass Prairie Type (G3, S1). In addition, the globally and provincially rare Graminoid Coastal Meadow Marsh Type (G2?, S2) and Little Bluestem - Switchgrass - Beachgrass Dune Grassland Type (G?, S2) occur along the sandy shores of Port Burwell Provincial Park (Table 1.3).

Table 1.3. Globally and Provincially Rare Vegetation Communities - Elgin Greenway CAP Area Ontario Name* Global Common Name* Global & Comments** Provincial Rank* This community occurs in the southern Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada. Stands occur on level sandy glacial outwash, sandy glacial lake plains, valley Andropogon gerardii - trains, and in dune areas. Soils are sandy Moist - Fresh Tallgrass Sorghastrum nutans - loams, loamy sands, and sands. They are G2; S1 moderately well-drained to imperfectly or Prairie Type Schizachyrium scoparium - Aletris somewhat poorly drained. Stands of this farinosa herbaceous vegetation community may be dominated by grasses, mixtures of grasses and forbs, forbs, or low shrubs and grasses. Many sites of this type have been eliminated by agricultural development. Stands occur on flat to moderately sloping sites with sand, loamy sand, or, rarely, sandy loam soils. The deep, well-drained soils Schizachyrium scoparium - formed from eolian sand, glacial outwash, Dry Tallgrass Prairie Sorghastrum nutans - Andropogon old dunes, alluvium, or sandy glacial G3; S1 lakeplains. Sparse to moderately dense mid Type gerardii - Lespedeza capitata sand and tall grasses dominate the community. herbaceous vegetation Woody species tolerant of dry conditions, such as Salix humilis, Populus tremuloides, and Acer rubrum, are sometimes found in this community. The total number of occurrences is unknown. Has been documented to some extent in U.S. Great Lakes states (approx. 525 ha/1300 Cladium mariscoides - Juncus acres), but not fully documented in Ontario, Graminoid Coastal balticus - Rhynchospora G2?; S2 where it is known to occur (S2). The Meadow Marsh Type community is generally found on soils capillacea herbaceous vegetation comprised of 75-100% sand in wet depressions of wind-deposited dune systems of the Great Lakes. Found in Port Burwell Provincial Park Community occurrence is along shores of the Great Lakes shores in both the U.S. and Little Bluestem - Schizachyrium scoparium - Canada on stabilized foredunes, and some Switchgrass - Panicum virgatum - Ammophila G?; S2 occurrence along Lake Champlain shores in Beachgrass Dune breviligulata herbaceous Vermont. Sand deposition and erosion, as Grassland Type vegetation well as tension with forest edges helps define this community type further. Found in Port Burwell Provincial Park

Ontario Name* Global Common Name* Global & Comments** Provincial Rank* This rich sugar maple - white ash - basswood forest occurs on nutrient-rich, mesic or wet- mesic settings on sloped to rolling terrain. The surface soils are deep sand, loamy sand, or loam and may be underlain by sandy clay loam to clay loam. The sites are somewhat Acer saccharum - Fraxinus spp. - Moist - Fresh Sugar poorly drained to well-drained and can have Tilia americana / Osmorhiza Maple - Black Maple G?; S3? a water table 0.4-2 m below the surface. Has claytoni - Caulophyllum a well-developed tree canopy composed of Deciduous Forest Type thalictroides forest deciduous species. Shrubs are scattered, but the herbaceous stratum is generally extensive. The ground flora (spring ephemerals) is diverse and fern richness is often high. Many examples of this community have probably been destroyed for agriculture and altered by past logging. Stands occupy shallow water depressions, oxbow ponds, and backwater sloughs of stream and river floodplains. Inundation is usually continuous throughout the year, but these sites can become dry in mid or late summer or during periods of prolonged Buttonbush Organic Cephalanthus occidentalis / Carex G4; S3 drought. Soils are deep (>100 cm) consisting Thicket Swamp Type spp. northern shrubland of peat or muck over alluvial parent material. The shrub layer can vary from very open to closed (20-80%). Cephalanthus occidentalis typically comprises nearly 90% of the shrub layer in waters 1-2 m deep. The herbaceous layer can be very sparse, due to flooding. A scattered tree canopy may occur. Dry to dry-mesic oak forest community found in the central regions of the Great Quercus alba - Quercus rubra - Lakes in both Canada and the U.S., from Dry - Fresh Mixed Oak Quercus velutina / Trientalis G?; S3S4 Minnesota east to Ontario. Stands typically Deciduous Forest Type occur on well-drained sandy and sandy loam borealis forest moraines, ice-contact topography, and fine- textured glacial lakebeds. More work needed to classify across range. Stands are found in kettle lakes associated with kettle-kame-end moraine topography. Soils are saturated peat. The tall-shrub zone Cornus spp. - Salix spp. - occupies the most consolidated peat. The Poison Sumac Organic Vaccinium corymbosum - vegetation is dominated by tall shrubs, with G4?; S3 at least 25% cover, and a fairly continuous Thicket Swamp Type Rhamnus alnifolia / covering of sphagnum moss. Herbaceous Toxicodendron vernix shrubland cover is variable, and tree cover is less than 10%. A sphagnum mat is fairly continuous. The herbaceous layer is not well characterized. * Information from NHIC (2011) ** Community descriptions from NatureServe (2011)

v. DOMINANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES

The deciduous forests that historically formed the dominant matrix community throughout southern Ontario, including Elgin County, were relatively stable, and supported wide-ranging species (Davis 1996;

Anderson and Bernstein 2003). Nested within these large forests were large and small patch habitat types (Anderson and Bernstein 2003) that often resulted in response to unique or specific terrain. Within the Carolinian life zone large patch communities include marshes, savannahs and prairies.

Minimum Dynamic Area

Minimum dynamic area (MDA) is often used to determine the minimum area needed to maintain natural ecological processes and to ensure that examples of all successional stages will exist within a given habitat type under all disturbance regimes (e.g. wind, fire, insects) (Pickett and Thompson 1978). Most forests in southern Ontario experienced average disturbances of less than 2 hectares (4 acres), and early successional stages were limited to gaps created in the canopy by windstorms, downbursts and ice-storms (Riley and Mohr 1994; Larson et al. 1999). It has been estimated that protected landscapes must be 50 to 100 times larger than average disturbance patches in order to maintain a relative equilibrium of habitats (Shugart and West 1981). In such landscapes, the proportions of different successional stages (e.g. young forest, old growth forest) would be relatively constant over time, even though the sites occupied by different stand types would change. On this basis, minimum recommended area for core forests in southern Ontario would be between 100 and 200 hectares (~250 and 500 acres). Given projections for larger, more frequent storms due to climate change, a conservative strategy would recommend cores of at least 200 hectares (~500 acres) in size.

Fire

Primary disturbance regimes in the prairies and savannahs of southern Ontario were largely driven by drought and fire cycles. Most of these tallgrass systems occurred on sand plains that experienced fires every 5-15 years. Fire is a significant process in the functioning and maintenance of Ontario’s remaining prairies (areas which historically supported grasses and herbs with few trees), grasslands (anthropogenic communities of grasses which occur as a result of abandoned cultural use such as farming) and savannahs [grasslands with 25-35% cover of woody species (Lee et al. 1998)]. Fire encourages species that respond to newly burned and open conditions and that benefit from the lack of competition from woody species, which cannot populate burned areas as quickly and efficiently. Natural fire regimes in southern Ontario have been suppressed or altered since European settlement, and as a result, many valuable natural areas have been, and continue to be, lost to succession. Succession is defined as the eventual encroachment of woody species, especially trees, into areas which will cause the cover to eventually become a woodland or forest. In this setting, woody species dominate and prairie or grassland species often die out due to shading or competition from these plants.

Savannahs exist as a delicate balance between scattered woody species and grassland species, and grow specifically in areas wet enough to support trees but dry enough to be subject to fire. They rely on frequent fire events to prevent forested oak woodland cover from becoming dominant. No current records exist for savannahs in Elgin County although they may have been present in the past.

Grasslands and prairies are similar to savannahs but have less cover of fire-tolerant oak species and greater expanses of open land carpeted in herbaceous, fire-tolerant grasses. Fire is usually an essential component in maintaining grasslands, prairies and savannahs. Burning tallgrass prairies has been shown to stimulate growth of prairie plants and the mycorrhizae that aid plants in nutrient acquisition (Bentivenga and Hetrick 1991). Periodic fires would historically have maintained the oak – pine savannahs and open woodlands on the dune systems in the coastal areas in the Norfolk Sand Plain (e.g. at Port Burwell Provincial Park).

Hydrology

The Elgin Greenway CAP includes several watersheds whose rivers drain into Lake Erie (see Figures 1.3, 1.6 and 1.7). The Kettle Creek, Catfish Creek, Talbot Creek, Tyrconnel Creek, Brock Creek, 16-Mile Creek, 52 Creek and South Otter Creek watersheds are entirely contained within the Elgin Greenway CAP. A major portion of the Big Otter Creek watershed is also within the CAP. The rivers in the Elgin Greenway CAP cut deep valleys as they flow toward Lake Erie.

Photo: Stan Caveney Figure 1.6. Creek mouth at Lake Erie shoreline

The Thames River bisects the northwest corner of the CAP and associated watersheds are included in the CAP. The river originates northeast of London and flows 273 km through the agricultural heartland of southwestern Ontario to Lake St. Clair, which drains into Lake Erie.

Portions of the CAP area on the Bothwell Sand Plain have a high water table resulting in moist habitats such as wetlands. Although nearly 70% of wetlands in southern Ontario have been drained (Snell 1987) many swamp complexes still exist in Elgin County (Kanter et al.1993).

Changes in land cover, drainage and damming of streams greatly affect the ecological integrity of river ecosystems (Allan 2004). In much of Southern Ontario, including Elgin County, large amounts of forest cover have been removed (Larson et al. 1999) and a large proportion of wetlands have been drained (Snell 1987). In addition, streams and rivers in the area are dammed and channelized to control water flow, modifying the natural flooding cycles and floodplain ecosystems.

Figure 1.7. Topography and major streams in the Elgin Greenway CAP area.

vi. SIGNIFICANT SPECIES

Despite the fact that much of the area has undergone conversion to agricultural and urban land uses, it provides habitat for at least 50 extant terrestrial and aquatic Species at Risk (SAR) (Figure 1.8), with another 17 SAR having occurred historically.

1.8. The threatened False Rue-anemone, one of at least 50 species at risk found in Elgin County

Unless otherwise indicated, data in table 1.4 are from NHIC (2008) but are generally not current to 2008. Only designated Species At Risk (SAR) (Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern) are included. Many additional globally and provincially rare species and vegetation communities occur in these areas, and some of them may be considered as focal conservation targets during the CAP process. Records have in some cases not been included for locally extirpated species (indicated with X) occurring at sites considered so modified that they are not recoverable, although records of many historic (indicated with H) and extirpated taxa are presented since these could conceivably recolonize (or be reintroduced) as habitats are restored.

Table 1.4. Significant Species – Elgin Greenway CAP Area Bold = Carolinian Woodland Recovery Team priority species [see also appendices C, D]

COSEWIC OMNR Rank G/S sites known at Viability Records Recent Most

Associated Conservation

ELEMENT Target(s)

(see Table 1.5 for key to codes)

G5 S2B Acadian Flycatcher END END 2000 1. VF; 2. UF; 3. MF S3B SZN American Badger G5 END END 2001 1. PS; 2. TF; 3. AG; 4. VF S2 G4 N3 American Chestnut END END 2004 1. UF; 2. VRVF; 3. AG S2

COSEWIC OMNR Rank G/S sites known at Viability Records Recent Most

Associated Conservation

ELEMENT Target(s)

(see Table 1.5 for key to codes)

American Water- G5 THR THR 1989 1. RS; 2. IW; 3. LES? willow S1 Bald Eagle G5 1. MF; 2. UF; 3. LES; 4. RS; 5. (Status Report not NAR SC S2N, 2008 IW available) S4B G5 Black Redhorse THR THR 1938 4. RS S2 G4 1. IW; 2. RS; 3. LES; 4. UF 5. Blanding’s Turtle THR THR 1992 S3 TF? 6. VF? 1. Rich floodplain forests (VF? RS? MF?); 2. PS (alvars); 3. TF [From SARA Registry: Blue Blue Ash G5 SC SC 2007 Ash inhabits three types of S3 habitat: rich floodplain forests, shallow soil over dry limestone and well-drained sand.] Bobolink THR THR 2012 G5 Broad Beech Fern SC SC 2004 1. MF S3 1. RS; 2. UF?; 3. VF?; 4. TF?

occasionally found along roads Butternut END END G4 S1 2011 through forests, along on forest edges, and in clearings (wherever enough sunlight to support seed regeneration) Cerulean Warbler SC SC G4 S3B 1991 2. UF Food: IW, RS, LES G5

Chimney Swift THR THR S4B, 2012 natural nest sites: VF, MF, UF S4N

G5 Colicroot THR THR 1993 6. PS; 7. TF S2 Common Five-Lined G5T2 END END 1970 1. UF; 2. PS; 3. LES Skink S2 G5 Common Hoptree THR THR 2002 1. LES S3

COSEWIC OMNR Rank G/S sites known at Viability Records Recent Most

Associated Conservation

ELEMENT Target(s)

(see Table 1.5 for key to codes)

Common Snapping G5 SC SC 1. IW; 2. RS; 3. LES Turtle S3 G4G5 1. RS; 2. VF (edge); 3. TF Crooked-stem Aster THR THR 2010 S2 (forest edge and roadsides) G5 Dense Blazing-star THR THR 1998 1. PS; 2. IW S2 G5 Drooping Trillium END END BC 2007 1. VF; 2. MF S1 Eastern Flowering G5 END END 2011 1. UF; fencerows and roadsides Dogwood S2? 1. IW; 2. PS; 3. TF; 4. MF; 5. G5T1 RS; 6. LES; 7. VF; 8. UF; 9. Eastern Foxsnake END END 2010 S1 AG? (anthropogenic features, not cropland) Eastern Hog-nosed G5 THR THR 2001 1. LES; 2. RS; IW; TF; UF; PS Snake S3 Eastern Meadowlark THR THR 2012 Eastern Musk Turtle G5 Pre THR THR 1. IW, 2. RS (Stinkpot) S3 1984 Eastern Prickly Pear G5 END END 1922 1. LES, 2. PS, 3. TF Cactus S1 Eastern (Northern) G5 1. IW; 2. RS; 3. LES: 4. VF; SC SC 1988 Ribbonsnake S3 Nesting: TF, PS, UF G3G4 1. RS; 2. LES; 3. IW (lakes); 4. Eastern Sand Darter THR THR 1997 S2 AG? G4 False Hop Sedge END END 2005 1. UF; 2. MF; S1 G5 False Rue-anemone THR THR 1993 1. VF; 2. MF; 3. TF (hedgerows) S2 G5 Fowler’s Toad THR THR 1987 1. LES; 2. IW and RS near lake S2 G5T1 Gray Ratsnake END END 1996 1. UF; 2. TF & PS; 3. IW S1 G5 Green Dragon SC SC 2011 1. VF; 2. RS (forest and thicket) S3

COSEWIC OMNR Rank G/S sites known at Viability Records Recent Most

Associated Conservation

ELEMENT Target(s)

(see Table 1.5 for key to codes)

G4 Jefferson Salamander END END 2011 1. UF, MF. 2. IW S2? 1. PS; 2. TF; 3. RS (low-lying Henslow’s Sparrow END END G4 SHB 1975 seasonally flooded areas); 4. AG G3 Hill’s Pondweed SC SC 1951 1. IW S2 Hooded Warbler THR SC G5 S3B 2010 1. UF; 2. VF Kentucky Coffee- G5 1. RS; 2. IW; 3. TF THR THR + 1948 tree S2 (hedgerows, edge) Large Whorled G5 END END D 1993 1. UF Pogonia S1 G4 Laura's Clubtail END END 2008 1. RS; 2. VF; 3. AG? S1 Least Bittern THR THR G5 S4B 1950 1. IW G5 Louisiana SC SC S3B, 1991 1. VF; 2. MF Waterthrush SZN G3G4 Massasauga THR THR 1965 All targets S3 G5 Milksnake SC SC 1995 All targets S3 Not G5 1. TF; 2. PS tracked Monarch SC SC S2N, (any open areas with milkweed by S4B and nectar sources) NHIC G5 Northern Bobwhite END END 1954 Mix of PS, TF, AG, UF S1 G3 Northern Madtom END END 1997 1. RS S1 G5 Northern Map Turtle SC SC 1995 1. LES; 2. RS S3 G5 Prothonotary Warbler END END 2009 1. MF S1B G5 Purple Twayblade END END 1986 1. PS; 2. UF S2

COSEWIC OMNR Rank G/S sites known at Viability Records Recent Most

Associated Conservation

ELEMENT Target(s)

(see Table 1.5 for key to codes)

1. TF; 2. UF; 3. PS; 4. VF; 5. RS; 6. MF? 7. AG? Open areas with a high density Red-headed G5 THR SC 2010 of dead or unhealthy trees Woodpecker S4B Winter: open, mature woodlands with abundance of acorns and beechnuts Wet prairie-like sites and G5 Riddell’s Goldenrod SC SC 1993 roadside ditches S3 1. PS; 2. RS; 3. TF G5 Shumard Oak SC SC 1993 1. MF; 2. TF S3 G5 Silver Chub SC SC 1960 1. LES; 2. RS S2 1. MF (Elgin); 2. IW; 3. TF; 4. Small White Lady’s- G4 END END 1924 PS slipper S1 Historic: PS Small Whorled G2 END END 1990 1. MF; 2. UF Pogonia S1 Not Southern Flying- G5 tracked NAR NAR 1. UF squirrel S4 by NHIC 1. LES; 2. RS G5 Spiny Softshell THR THR 2008 (in Elgin County. In rest of S3 range, order would be reversed) G5 Spoon-leaved Moss END END 2002 1. VF; 2. MF S1 G5 1. IW; 2. RS; 3. TF; woodland Spotted Turtle END END 2010 S3 streams 1. LES (coastal marshes); 2. IW; G5 Swamp Rose Mallow SC SC 2002 3. RS; 4. TF S3 hydro corridor

COSEWIC OMNR Rank G/S sites known at Viability Records Recent Most

Associated Conservation

ELEMENT Target(s)

(see Table 1.5 for key to codes)

All types of terrestrial habitat near breeding ponds (IW, TF, Not Western Chorus Frog PS, AG, UF, MF) G5TNR tracked (Carolinian NAR NAR S4 by population) Breeding ponds: temporary NHIC ponds and wetlands that become dry in summer (TF, IW, MF) G5 Willowleaf Aster THR THR 1991 1. PS; 2. TF; 3. RS? S2 Woodland Vole SC SC G5 S3? 1986 1. UF G5 S2B Yellow-breasted Chat SC SC 2010 1. TF; 2. RS SZN

2. BIODIVESITY TARGETS AND ASSOCIATED THREATS

i. CONSERVATION TARGETS

Table 1.5. Conservation Targets Conservation Targets Code Nested Targets Acadian Flycatcher, American Badger, Chimney Swift, Crooked-stem Aster, Drooping Trillium, Eastern Foxsnake, Hooded Warbler, False Rue-anemone, Green Dragon, American Chestnut, Laura’s Clubtail, Louisiana 1. Valley and Ravine VF Waterthrush, Milksnake, Northern Ribbonsnake, Red-headed Woodpecker, Spoon-leaved Moss, Butternut, Forests Southern Flying-squirrel, Blanding’s Turtle(?), Blue Ash(?) (Historic / Extirpated: Massasauga – 1965) Acadian Flycatcher, Bald Eagle, Blanding’s Turtle, Chimney Swift, Eastern Foxsnake, Eastern Hog-nosed Snake, 2. Upland Forests Ratsnake, Hooded Warbler, Large Whorled Pogonia, Cerulean Warbler, American Chestnut, Milksnake, Southern Flying-squirrel, Small Whorled Pogonia, Eastern Flowering Dogwood, False Hop Sedge, Red-headed UF (sand plain, clay plain, Woodpecker, Northern Ribbonsnake (nesting), Western Chorus Frog, Butternut, Jefferson Salamander moraine) (Historic / Extirpated: Woodland Vole – 1986, Northern Bobwhite – 1954; Common Five-lined Skink – pre-1984; Massasauga – 1965; Purple Twayblade – 1986) Acadian Flycatcher, Bald Eagle, Blue Ash, Chimney Swift, False Hop Sedge, Broad Beech Fern, Drooping 3. Moist Forests and Trillium, Eastern Foxsnake, False Rue-anemone, Louisiana Waterthrush, Milksnake, Spoon-leaved Moss, Swamps (inc. MF Prothonotary Warbler, Small Whorled Pogonia, Shumard Oak, Western Chorus Frog, Spotted Turtle, Red-headed headwaters) Woodpecker, Southern Flying-squirrel, Jefferson Salamander (Historic / Extirpated: Massasauga – 1965; Small White Lady’s-slipper – 1924) American Badger, Blue Ash, Colicroot, Dense Blazing-star, Eastern Foxsnake, Eastern Hog-nosed Snake, Milksnake, Ratsnake, Riddell’s Goldenrod, Red-headed Woodpecker, Northern Ribbonsnake (nesting), Western 4. Native Prairies and Chorus Frog, Willowleaf Aster, Bobolink PS Savannahs (Historic/Extirpated: Massasauga – 1965; Common Five-lined Skink – pre-1984; Eastern Prickly Pear Cactus – 1922; Henslow’s Sparrow – 1975; Northern Bobwhite – 1954; Purple Twayblade – 1986, Small White Lady’s- slipper – 1924)

Conservation Targets Code Nested Targets American Badger, Blue Ash, Colicroot, Crooked-stem Aster, Eastern Flowering Dogwood, Monarch, Eastern Foxsnake, Milksnake, Eastern Hog-nosed Snake, False Rue-anemone, Shumard Oak, Spotted Turtle, Western 5. Thickets, Chorus Frog, Swamp Rose Mallow, Willowleaf Aster, Riddell’s Goldenrod, Ratsnake, Red-headed Woodpecker, hedgerows, fencerows, Yellow-breasted Chat, Bobolink, Northern Ribbonsnake (nesting), TF shelterbelts, Blanding’s Turtle? Butternut? abandoned fields (Historic / Extirpated: Massasauga – 1965; Eastern Prickly Pear Cactus – 1922; Henslow’s Sparrow – 1975, Northern Bobwhite – 1954 - H, Small White Lady’s-slipper – 1924) (Planted / Introduced: Kentucky Coffee-Tree) 6. Sustainable AG Healthy soils, clean water, clean air; Agricultural Practices Bald Eagle, Blanding’s Turtle, Blue Ash, Butternut, Chimney Swift, Crooked-stem Aster, Eastern Foxsnake, 7. Rivers, streams, and Eastern Hog-nosed Snake, Eastern Sand Darter, Green Dragon, Laura’s Clubtail, Milksnake, Northern Madtom, associated open Red-headed Woodpecker, Riddell’s Goldenrod, Swamp Rose Mallow, Common Snapping Turtle, Spotted Turtle, RS Northern Map Turtle, Northern Ribbonsnake, Spiny Softshell, Willowleaf Aster? floodplain habitats (Historic / Extirpated: American Water-willow – 1989, Massasauga – 1965; Black Redhorse – 1938; Silver Chub (incl. headwaters) – 1960 L. Erie; Fowler’s Toad – 1987 (near Lake Erie); Henslow’s Sparrow – 1975; Eastern Musk Turtle – pre- 1984 SM) (Planted / Introduced: Kentucky Coffee-Tree) Bald Eagle, Blanding’s Turtle, Chimney Swift, Common Snapping Turtle, Dense Blazing-star, Eastern Foxsnake, Eastern Hog-nosed Snake, Eastern Sand Darter, Ratsnake, Least Bittern, Milksnake, Northern Ribbonsnake, 8. Marshes, ponds, Spotted Turtle, Western Chorus Frog, Swamp Rose Mallow, Yellow-breasted Chat, impoundments and IW (Historic / Extirpated: American Water-willow – 1989, Massasauga – 1965; Jefferson Salamander – 1986; constructed wetlands. Eastern Musk Turtle – pre-1984, Fowler’s Toad – 1987; Hill’s Pondweed – 1951; Small White Lady’s-slipper – 1924) (Planted / Introduced: Kentucky Coffee-Tree) Migratory birds and insects; Bald Eagle, Blanding’s Turtle, Chimney Swift, Common Snapping Turtle, Eastern Hog-nosed Snake, Eastern Sand Darter, Milksnake, Northern Map Turtle, Common Hoptree, Silver Chub, 9. Lake Erie Shoreline LES Eastern Foxsnake, Northern Ribbonsnake, Spiny Softshell, Swamp Rose Mallow (Historic / Extirpated: Massasauga – 1965; Common Five-lined Skink – pre-1984; Eastern Prickly Pear Cactus – 1922; Fowler’s Toad – 1987(near Lk Erie); Silver Chub – 1960 L. Erie; American Water-willow – 1989) 10. SAR Snakes SS Eastern Hog-nosed Snake, Gray Ratsnake, Eastern Foxsnake, Northern Ribbonsnake, Milksnake

Table 1.6. Conservation Target Viability Conservation Landscape Key Ecological Attribute(s) Size Condition Overall Target Context Presence of reproducing populations of characteristic forest interior bird species 1. Valley & (specific indicators to be determined); Extent of forest cover and interior habitat; Quality of forest communities. Fair Good Fair Fair Ravine Forests Measure: no net loss of forest cover from 2010 levels; Measure: x forest interior breeding bird species in x sites. 2. Upland Same as #1 Fair Fair Poor Fair Forests 3. Moist Forests Groundwater recharge; Presence of: Prothonotary Warbler breeding; Tupelo / Black-gum / heron rookeries. Poor Poor Poor Poor and Swamps Measures: overall extent, interior habitat 4. Prairies & 1. Species diversity – presence of key indicator species; Disturbance/ Fire – need Poor Poor Poor Poor Savannahs fire to maintain the species; minimum size 5. Thickets, Hedgerows, Fair Fair Fair 1. Species diversity – species should be represented in x amounts; Minimum width (Hedge rows (Hedge rows (Hedge rows Shelterbelts, of 10 m (30 ft); Need to maintain tree roots. Agricultural activities must be – poor; – poor; – poor; Fair Fencerows, limited to canopy dripline; Links to other hedge rows, thickets; Provide shelter Thickets – Thickets – Thickets – Abandoned to wildlife – refuge for beneficial insects; Benign neglect fair to good; fair to good; fair to good; Fields – fair) Fields – fair) Fields – fair) Fields 6. Sustainable 1. Healthy soils – should have organic matter, bacteria, earthworms, fungus; Minimal compaction; Agriculture Should not depend on synthetic inputs; Poor Fair Fair Fair Agriculture Healthy water - Not nutrient rich, free of toxins, buffered hydrology. 7. Rivers, Water quality (benthic organism composition, temperature); extent of naturally- vegetated buffers (measured using GIS over time) (% of watercourse having Streams & 30m buffer; measures of surrounding land use measured by %); extent natural Fair Fair Fair Fair Floodplains watercourse vs. altered watercourse. 8. Inland Water quality (benthic organism composition, temperature); extent of naturally- Wetlands vegetated buffers (measured using GIS over time) (% of wetland having 100m buffer; measures of surrounding land use measured by %); connectivity to other Poor Fair Poor Poor (marshes, wetlands; structural and vegetation composition (diversity / native vs. invasive); ponds) intact hydrology (quality of incoming watercourses, based on measures for #7).

Conservation Landscape Key Ecological Attribute(s) Size Condition Overall Target Context 9. Lake Erie Very shoreline (1 km % natural cover, % hardened shoreline, Good Good Good Good inland) 10. SAR Reptiles2. Habitat connectivity OVERALL Fair Fair Poor Fair Table 1.6 is based on The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Action Planning (CAP) viability summary table. The Nature Conservancy’s (CAP) Excel Workbook version 5a can be used to calculate the overall viability ranks. The CAP Workbook is found on NCC’s Training and Resources Website under the Reference Materials / Conservation / Campaign / Natural Area Conservation Planning (NACP) / NACP Resource Materials / TNC CAP Process folder. Consider placing nested targets and/or viability rationale in a separate appendix if their content is too overwhelming for the table. Carolinian Woodland Recovery Team mandated species are bolded.

Optimal Health: The biodiversity target is functioning at an ecologically desirable status, and requires little Very Good management. Minimum Health: The biodiversity target is functioning within its range of acceptable variation; it may require Good some management. Likely Degradation: The biodiversity target lies outside of its range of acceptable variation and requires Fair management. If unchecked, the biodiversity target will be vulnerable to serious degradation. Imminent Loss: Allowing the biodiversity target to remain in this condition for an extended period will make Poor restoration or preventing extirpation practically impossible. Research Need: The biodiversity target is known to occur, but information on this viability criterion is currently is Unknown unknown. NA Not Applicable: This criterion is not significant for assessing the health of this biodiversity target.

ii. THREATS

Detailed information on threats to Elgin County SAR is presented in Appendix D. Tables 1.7 and 1.8 summarize the most relevant threats (Figure 1.9).

Photo: John St. Pierre Figure 1.9. Although important to economic prosperity, roads fragment habitat and cause animal mortality 27

Table 1.7. Summary of Threats – Elgin Greenway CAP

Threat Associated Stress(es) ValleyForests ( UplandForests (UF) Swamps (SF) Moist Forests & (PS) Prairie Savannah& (TF) AbandonedFields Thickets,Hedgerows, Agriculture(SA) Sustainable Floodplains (RS) Rivers,Streams & (IW) Inland Wetlands (LES) LakeErie Shorelin Overall

Key: VERY HIGH; high; medium; low

Stress applies to all conservation targets unless

otherwise indicated (with acronym) VF

)

Invasive Non-Native/ 1. Competition for resources Alien Species 2. Allelopathic spp. have broader ecosystem impacts a) Vascular plants, 3. DISPLACE NATIVE PLANTS (PS) VERY VERY HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH MED HIGH MED vertebrates 4. Reduced food and habitat quality for wildlife (TF) HIGH HIGH 5. Control measures add to impacts 6. Filling, succession of wetlands from volume of the biomass Housing & Urban 1. Habitat loss & fragmentation Development 2. Predation by household pets 3. Light pollution 4. Invasive / non-native species. VERY VERY HIGH HIGH MED LOW HIGH MED LOW HIGH 5. Encroachment (habitat modification) HIGH HIGH 6. Loss of prime agricultural land (SA) 7. Erosion, increased sand bedload; suspended sediment / turbidity; reduced groundwater recharge & discharge. (SA, RS) Other Ecosystem 1. Erosion, bank stability Modification: 2. Hydrological impacts 3. Direct habitat loss VERY HIGH HIGH HIGH MED HIGH HIGH MED Tile Drainage 4. Loss of biodiversity & changes to species HIGH composition (MF) 5. Impact of mowing at wrong time or season (PS).

Key: VERY HIGH; high; medium; low

Stress applies to all conservation targets unless

otherwise indicated (with acronym) VF

)

Air-Borne Pollutants 1. Forest plant health 2. Climate change VERY VERY HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW LOW LOW LOW 3. Impacts of increased severe weather events HIGH HIGH 4. Burning of plastic releases carcinogens (dioxins, furans). (SA) Invasive Non-Native/ 1. Reduced forest quality, health and diversity VERY HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH Alien Species HIGH b) Diseases, pathogens Invasive Non-Native/ 1. Reduced forest quality, health and diversity VERY HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH Alien Species HIGH c) Invertebrate pests Roads 1. Habitat fragmentation and loss VERY HIGH HIGH HIGH MED LOW LOW MED 2. Road mortality HIGH 3. Run-off (salt, chemicals) (MF) Non-Timber Crops 1. Erosion & soil compaction 2. Reduced extent of habitat & buffering 3. Habitat loss & fragmentation (PS, RS) (see also Agricultural Effluents, below) 4. Loss of organic matter (SA) 5. Sediment and nutrient loading (RS) LOW MED LOW HIGH HIGH MED MED MED HIGH 6. Oxygen depletion (RS) 7. Reduced habitat quality. (RS) 8. Reduced biodiversity. (RS) 9. Water level fluctuations (IW) 10. Herbicide & pesticide run-off. (IW) 11. Increased predator stress (IW)

Key: VERY HIGH; high; medium; low

Stress applies to all conservation targets unless

otherwise indicated (with acronym) VF

)

Agricultural & 1. Herbicides and insecticides (drift) (PS) Forestry Effluents 2. Nutrient inputs (RS) (contribute to succession if fertilizer gets into groundwater runoff - PS) VERY LOW LOW LOW MED HIGH MED MED MED HIGH 3. Reduced resilience of species; more prone to HIGH disease. (TF) 4. EXCESS NITROGEN IN SOIL. (SA) Logging & Wood 1. Habitat damage Harvesting 2. Loss of canopy cover 3. Soil compaction & erosion MED HIGH HIGH LOW HIGH LOW MED HIGH 4. Invasive species 5. Reduced forest interior & extent 6. Siltation (RS) Commercial & 1. Loss of prime agricultural land (SA) Industrial 2. Erosion, increased sand bedload; suspended LOW MED MED LOW HIGH HIGH MED LOW MED HIGH Development sediment / turbidity; reduced groundwater recharge & discharge. (SA, RS) Recreational Activities 1. Disturbance to wildlife a) Motorized off-road 2. Direct damage to habitat and vegetation MED MED MED MED MED LOW LOW LOW HIGH vehicles 3. Soil erosion & compaction 4. Invasive species Problematic Native 1. Increased nutrients, habitat destruction Species (White-tailed 2. Decreased biodiversity MED MED MED MED LOW MED MED LOW HIGH Deer, Wild Turkey, 3. Impede natural succession / regeneration Canada Goose)

Key: VERY HIGH; high; medium; low

Stress applies to all conservation targets unless

otherwise indicated (with acronym) VF

)

Tourism & 1. Direct habitat loss Recreational 2. Household pets (predation) Development 3. Light pollution MED MED MED LOW MED LOW LOW LOW MED MED 4. Invasive species 5. Encroachment (habitat modification) Livestock Farming & 1. Impaired regeneration of vegetation Ranching 2. Soil compaction & erosion 3. Invasive species LOW LOW LOW LOW MED MED LOW MED LOW MED 4. Reduced water quality (nutrient loading, sediment deposition) (IW) 5. Habitat destruction (trampling, over-grazing) (IW) Renewable Energy 1. Death and damage to flying and migratory species. LOW LOW LOW LOW MED LOW MED MED Utility & Service Lines 1. Habitat fragmentation MED MED MED LOW LOW LOW LOW MED 2. Hydrological impacts Hunting & Collecting 1. Population decline or loss (SAR turtles) (MF, IW) LOW LOW MED MED MED LOW LOW LOW MED Terrestrial Animals Gathering Terrestrial 1. Cumulative impact of losing individuals, seed Plants sources, genes, food sources. LOW LOW LOW MED MED LOW LOW MED 2. Damage to vegetation (trampling). 3. Habitat loss. (IW) Introduced Genetic VERY LOW LOW LOW MED LOW LOW MED Material HIGH

Key: VERY HIGH; high; medium; low

Stress applies to all conservation targets unless

otherwise indicated (with acronym) VF

)

Household Sewage & 1. Reduced resilience of species; more prone to Urban Waste Water disease. (TF) 2. Chemicals impact soil quality and water quality; VERY LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW MED LOW LOW MED smell (SA) HIGH 3. Diseases, pathogenic bacteria (e.g., ecoli), prions (SA) 4. Nutrient loading (RS) Industrial & Military 1. Reduced resilience of species; more prone to Effluents disease. (TF) LOW LOW LOW LOW MED HIGH LOW LOW MED 2. Contaminants, toxins from industrial waste water (SA) Dams & Water 1. Hydrological impacts (lower water table) (MF) management/ Use 2. Loss of headwaters & recharge areas (MF) 3. Increased water temperature (RS) 4. Impeded fish movement (RS) LOW LOW MED LOW LOW MED LOW LOW MED 5. Disrupted sediment transport (RS) 6. Increased problematic native and non-native species (Canada Goose, Common Carp) (RS) 7. Reduced water quality and quantity (RS) Garbage & Solid 1. Bank destabilization (RS) Waste 2. Erosion (RS) 3. Habitat loss (RS) LOW LOW LOW LOW MED MED LOW LOW MED 4. Introduction of non-native species (RS) 5. Leachate (RS) Excess Energy 1. Erosion, slumping sedimentation HIGH LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW 2. Damage to vegetation due to flooding & scouring Oil & Gas Drilling LOW LOW LOW MED LOW LOW LOW LOW

Key: VERY HIGH; high; medium; low

Stress applies to all conservation targets unless

otherwise indicated (with acronym) VF

)

Fire & Fire 1. NATURAL SUCCESSION, LOSS OF Suppression ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY MED LOW LOW 2. INVASIVE SPECIES Wood & Pulp LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW Plantations Mining & Quarrying LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW Railroads 1. Habitat damage (by off-road vehicles) LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW Recreational Activities b) Horses, Mountain LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW Bikes, Hiking & Other “Passive” Activities Fishing & Harvesting LOW LOW LOW LOW Aquatic Resources

Threats are based on the IUCN classification of direct threats (IUCN-CMP 2006a).

Very High The threat is likely to destroy or eliminate the biodiversity target. High The threat is likely to seriously degrade the biodiversity target. Medium The threat is likely to moderately degrade the biodiversity target. Low The threat is likely to only slightly impair the biodiversity target.

Table 1.8. Additional Comments on Sources of Threats Source of Threat Notes (i.d.: key impacted sites, specific activities, contributing factors, possible solutions, etc.)

Residential & LES: Even though threat may currently be low, plan should ensure that this does not become an issue (e.g., Port Commercial Glasgow, Duttona Beach, west of Port Bruce) Development Housing & Urban VF: Cats (in particular) predating birds (migratory & breeding); Landscaping (Norway Maple, barberry); Trails, alteration of habitat, dumping UF: Provincial level legislation required to protect upland forests (e.g., PPS). – e.g., “no net loss”, or minimum of 30% per municipality. Rural estate housing & rural development generally is not recommended, but where it takes place it should be situated outside of upland forests (with restored buffer zones incorporated into development plans); Cats (in particular) predating birds (migratory & breeding); Landscaping (Norway Maple, barberry); Trails, alteration of habitat, dumping. SF: Status of wetland evaluations in Elgin is good (Gould pers. comm. 2010) & mapping submitted to OP process. Small unevaluated swamp forests might still be at risk. TF: Hedgerows, fallow fields may be included in subdivision plans. SA: Linear sprawl along paved roads, easy to get zoning change; # of building starts is the main economic indicator; subdividing land amongst children may contribute. RS: Impacted sites – The Mighty Big Otter Creek, Catfish Creek, Kettle Creek, Thames River, Bradley Creek. Specific activities – Stormwater management systems and increases in impervious surfaces is affecting temperature and base flow in watercourses. Human activities (vegetation removal, trails etc..) landscaping of rural non-farm Contributing factors – increase in human population. Possible solutions – strengthen land use polices to address setbacks, groundwater recharge, education, better municipal planning IW: Grants/incentives to rural non-farmers to create enhance wetlands Commercial & Industrial UF: Needs to be considered in OP updates RS: Increase in impervious surfaces Tourism & Recreational VF, UF: Trailer parks, golf courses (pesticides) Agriculture & Aquaculture

Source of Threat Notes (i.d.: key impacted sites, specific activities, contributing factors, possible solutions, etc.)

Non-Timber Crops VF: Farming to ravine edge, gully formation UF: Farming to forest edge; squaring forest and loss of edge buffer; incentives are being used to utilize inappropriate equipment to clear forests to reclaim former agricultural lands. PS: Threat is high when railroads sell right-of-way to neighbouring farms and right-of-way is converted to crops TF: Farm consolidation Requires changing attitudes most tree rows planted at same time, will all be maturing in next 20 – 30 years, were given those trees and may not replace them when they die. RS: Extreme problem in eastern half of County: Big Otter, Kettle River and Catfish. Specific activities – cultivation of flood plains, Herbicide/pesticide applications, introduction of non-native species. Contributing factors – changes in ownership, changes in crop prices, size of machinery. Possible solutions – Buffer strips, incentives, BMPs, Legislation, education, IW: Dependent on the wetland in question – variable. Contributing factors – increased farming intensity (larger fields, larger equipment, push for increased productivity). Possible solutions – recognize habitat valuable provide tax incentives (similar to CLTIP). Education and outreach, encourage participation in the environmental farm plan. Legislation – to protect the remaining wetlands/wetland buffers LES: Widespread. Cropping to the edge of the bluff, maintaining manicured lawn right to the edge of the bluff, tile outlets. Natural toe erosion, maintaining crop land. Lawns – to maintain view. Education, BMP’s, incentives Wood & Pulp TF: Could actually create thickets by converting cropped land to growing willow or other shrubs for biofuel Plantations Livestock Farming & VF, UF: Improving, but many valley sites need fencing. Ranching RS: Very specific locations. Legislation, BMP’s, incentives. IW: Dependent on the wetland in question – variable. Specific activities - Livestock access to wetland and riparian habitat, manure runoff (direct, feed lot, fields, storage). Possible Solutions – Grants to improve storage/application, Legislation to prevent manure spreading on frozen ground. Education – BMP’s. Marine & Freshwater Aquaculture Energy Production & Mining Oil & Gas Drilling VF, UF: West Elgin and East Elgin affected PS: May affect some prairie sites TF: Footprint is usually small. Mining & Quarrying TF: Opportunity to create habitat when rehabilitating quarry. IW: Formerly an issue, not now.

Source of Threat Notes (i.d.: key impacted sites, specific activities, contributing factors, possible solutions, etc.)

Renewable Energy VF, UF, SF: Possible future threat PS: Potential for wind farms along abandoned rail lines (mitigation / restoration elsewhere would be a potential solution) TF: Currently restricted to Class 3 & 4 agricultural lands LES: Not sure about the range/location of wind farms—still proposed, so impact will depend on location and number. Transportation & Service Corridors Roads VF, UF: Road drainage (culverts); road widening into forests) Railroads Utility & Service Lines VF: New utility (wind & solar farm) service lines may result in hydrological changes due to location of underground cables; utility lines and service roads may fragment forests Shipping Lanes Flight Paths Biological Resource Use Hunting & Collecting MF: Collecting of SAR turtles. Terrestrial Animals TF: Deliberate killing of snakes. IW: Key impacted sites – Calton swamp, Yarmouth natural heritage area, CSX right of way, Dunwich swamp. Public education/awareness – reporting incidents to enforcement. LES: Pet collection may occur more frequently in Rondeau and Long Point Gathering Terrestrial VF: Poaching of medicinal plants (SAR) Plants PS: Extent to which collecting is occurring locally is not known. IW: Depending on where it is located. Key impact sites - Calton swamp, Yarmouth natural heritage area, CSX right of way, Dunwich swamp. Public education/awareness – reporting incidents to enforcement. Logging & Wood UF: Current logging practices (e.g., high-grading) resulting in degradation of habitat, reduced biodiversity, loss of seed trees, and Harvesting habitat quality; no old growth and associated species and processes. MF: Logging in swamp forests can be very destructive if undertaken at wrong season and using inappropriate methods. TF: Hedgerow trees not suitable for logging due to metal, however landowner attitudes towards trees may be factor (cut down large trees that are shading field) RS: Widespread. Specific activities – aggressive skidding, wrong time of year, removing to much canopy, not washing equipment prior to entering sites, not marking woodlot properly. Contributing factors – economy/market, knowledge/ethics, LES: Tree cutting bylaw. Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources

Source of Threat Notes (i.d.: key impacted sites, specific activities, contributing factors, possible solutions, etc.)

Human Intrusions & Disturbances Recreational Activities a) Motorized vehicles VF, UF, TF: Issue is not organized clubs, but indiscriminate and illegal ATV use at inappropriate times of year. PS: Creation of new trails and off-trail use are the biggest problems. RS: Establish associations and policed trails b) Horses PS: Equestrians tend to stay on trails (not a major issue locally) c) Mountain Bikes d) Hiking & other “passive” Work & Other Activities TF: Soil compaction from equipment may be a factor Natural System Modifications Fire & Fire Suppression Dams & Water MF: Ditching, channelization management/ Use Other Ecosystem VF: Impacts on bank stability, erosion, hydrological impacts, eutrophication of wetlands and streams Modification (tile UF: Vegetation cleared along closed municipal drains, no regeneration (varies by municipality) (may benefit meadow and prairie drainage) spp.); Off-site impacts: erosion, hydrological impacts, eutrophication of wetlands and streams. MF: Loss of ephemeral ponds and breeding habitat (for SAR and other spp.) PS: Mowing at wrong time of year; challenges of suppressing natural succession. Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes Invasive Non-Native/ VF, UF: Common Buckthorn, Multiflora Rose, Garlic Mustard, Common Periwinkle, Phragmites, Dame’s Rocket, Dog Strangling Alien Species Vine, Giant Hogwood, etc. (Look to prevent future infestations, etc.); management actions may need to be species-specific MF: Phragmites of particular concern PS: Introduction of garden plants, Dog-strangling Vine TF: Buckthorn, Russian Olive, honeysuckle, Common Lilac, Multi-flora Rose, barberry RS: Common Carp, Phragmites, etc. IW: Ex: Phragmites is a key factor impacting many of the wetlands in Elgin. Other species include garlic mustard, celandine. Possible solutions – more science/research into controls. Identify problem sites/species and control faster. Increased controls on imports. Biological controls that impact native species. LES: Expectation that more may come in the future. Presence of invasives but none are particularly aggressive 37

Source of Threat Notes (i.d.: key impacted sites, specific activities, contributing factors, possible solutions, etc.)

Problematic Native VF: Habitat generalists (increasing forest interior) Species PS: Goldenrods can be problematic; ragweed creates negative public perception. TF: Succession; raspberries. RS: Canada Goose IW: Canadian Geese overpopulated. Constructed on-line impoundments that provide open water habitat in the winter. No-till farming. Possible solutions – remove on-line impoundments on cold water streams, plant/maintain tall vegetation adjacent to wetlands, harvest Canada Geese a) White-tailed Deer, VF: Population control needed Wild Turkey b) Diseases, pathogens VF, UF, TF: Butternut Canker, Beech Bark Disease, Dutch Elm Disease, Red Oak Wilt, Dogwood Anthracnose, etc. c) Pests VF, TF: Emerald Ash Borer, Dutch Elm Disease etc. TF: Common Hoptree affected Introduced Genetic Material Pollution Household Sewage & PS: Sewage sludge is spread in many areas for 30 years; high in toxins Urban Waste Water SA: Road salt and other associated run-off. Sewage sludge contains mix of industrial, medical and household effluent; Land application permitted by legislation, provided as a free fertilizer; difficult to monitor and enforce. Certified organic farmers can't apply sewage sludge. Prions – protein (cause spongiform encephalitis), persistent (don't die during treatment), gets into soil; people are getting diseases from soil due to medical waste. RS: Big Otter, Catfish Creek, Kettle Creek. Sewage treatment plants. Capacity. Sewage treatment plant upgrades, including the separation of storm and sanitary sewers LES: Problem solved in Otter Valley catchment due to new treatment plant. Flood could cause water treatment plant in St. Thomas to overflow. Not a lot of houses on shoreline still on septic. Industrial & Military SA: Ford and other industrial waste water lagoons – what's in them?; tend to be built in wet areas because not suitable for Effluents building.

Source of Threat Notes (i.d.: key impacted sites, specific activities, contributing factors, possible solutions, etc.)

Agricultural & Forestry PS: Prairie doesn't like good soil; “improving” the soil is not good for prairie; however, most soils in the area are degraded and the Effluents only way to maintain them is through fertilizer TF: Includes pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer; Irreversibility high because difficult to change industrial agriculture attitudes; latest research on glyphosates (e.g. Round-up) found they change nutrient uptake in following years, affect ability to take up minerals and micronutrients in soils; possible that chemicals from 1950s/60s still in soil; these habitats are adapted to this type of stress. SA: Effluents include insecticides, herbicides, livestock medications, manure, and fertilizer. Irreversibility high because difficult to change industrial agriculture practices and attitudes (need different word). Unused nitrogen becomes nitrates which is a groundwater pollutant; stopped testing water for it because they have never not found it! Liquid manure not as good for soil as solid composted manure; more likely to run off, not as long lived in soil. Nutrients in composted manure are more accessible to plants (tends to stay put). Paper sludge spread as a soil conditioner (not allowed on certified organic); used to build berms at East Elgin Sportsman Association Club; was stored in Port Stanley and later spread on fields in Elgin (possibly just west Elgin) Garbage & Solid Waste TF: Becomes eyesore because captures windblown trash; landfill irreversibility is very high. SA: Green Lane (Southwold) – has been used for a long time, now taking Toronto garbage. RS: Most ravines. Unauthorized dumping in ravines. Garbage bag tags, disposal restrictions. Education, more opportunities to dispose of materials, roll tipping fees into general taxes. Air-Borne Pollutants TF: Vehicle exhaust – impacts of roadsides higher than hedgerows and thickets. SA: Burning plastic (feed bags and containers) – release dioxins and furans (carcinogenic) Excess Energy VF, UF, TF: Storm and spring flooding – relates to clearing of forests higher in watersheds and tile drainage; could be addressed through retention ponds. Stormwater runoff would be addressed through enhanced requirements for settling ponds. Planting of buffers along forest edge would improve forest health and reduce stresses. IW: Larger the wetland complex the better it can buffer an adverse event

3. Objectives and Strategies i. Conservation Objectives:

Objectives Threats Addressed Targets Addressed 1. At least two projects per year address peak flows, nutrient inputs and Tile drainage VF, UF, SF, RS, IW, gully erosion at priority drain outlets. LES 2. Increase natural cover of all conservation target types through Housing and urban All restoration by [realistic quantifiable target based on GIS analysis] by development / habitat 2020, using existing Elgin Greenway and Landscape Strategy mapping, fragmentation / encroachment including utility and riparian corridors. / climate change 3. Protect and enhance functional ecological linkages between and Housing and urban All within existing core natural areas by 2020 through securement using development / habitat existing Elgin Greenway and Landscape Strategy mapping. fragmentation / encroachment / climate change 4. Establish and manage functional ecological linkages between and Housing and urban All within existing core natural areas by 2020 through stewardship at 80 development / habitat project sites using existing Elgin Greenway and Landscape Strategy fragmentation / encroachment mapping. / climate change 5. Develop outreach strategy by end of 2013 to communicate CAP All All themes and objectives to Elgin residents. 6. Complete a natural heritage inventory by 2016 in order to update and All All fill gaps in relation to Species At Risk, significant habitats, invasive species and other important natural heritage features. 7. Prevent and control the spread of new populations of high priority Invasive Non-Native/ Alien SF, RS, IW, VF, UF, terrestrial invasive plant species at critical sites in Elgin County. Species: Terrestrial invasive PS, TF, LES plant species

Objectives Threats Addressed Targets Addressed 8. Reduce road mortality of small animals at key sites. Road mortality SAR reptiles, amphibians, birds & mammals 9. Improve roadside habitat for pollinating insects Declining pollinator VF, UF, SF, PS, IW, populations, herbicides and LES insecticides (road maintenance impacts) 10. Improve forest habitat quality and reduce threats to priority species Habitat loss and degradation UF, SF, TF, VF, PS, and community types. due to incompatible forestry RS, LES, SAR forest interior birds 11. Manage problematic native species (e.g., White-tailed Deer, Wild Problematic native species VF, UF, SF, PS, TF, Turkey, Canada Goose) populations. RS, IW, LES 12. By 2015, develop a complementary strategy to promote sustainable Loss of prime agricultural land; Sustainable agricultural practices in Elgin County. Excess nitrogen in soil Agriculture; SA, TF, PS, RS, IW, LES, VF, UF, SF 13. By 2015, develop a complementary strategy to promote eco-tourism in Elgin County.

ii. Strategic Actions and Action Steps

Timeline Threats Targets KEA / Monitoring Potential Leads Costs / Addressed Addressed / (Collaborators) Funding # Objectives and Strategic Actions Recovery Sources Strategy links 1. Objective Reduce peak flows, nutrient inputs at point 2012-2020 & Tile Drainage VF, UF, SF, Water quality; extent CA’s, Elgin t.b.d. sources and gully erosion at priority drain beyond RS, IW, LES of naturally-vegetated Stewardship outlets. buffers (measured Council (Elgin using GIS over time) County Stewardship (% of wetland having Initiative) 100m buffer; measures of surrounding land use measured by %); connectivity to other wetlands; structural and vegetation composition (diversity / native vs. invasive); intact hydrology. 1.1. Strategic Undertake study to identify priority sites and 2012 - 2013 Tile Drainage VF, UF, SF, Priority sites and CA’s t.b.d. Action landowners to contact. RS, IW, LES landowners identified 1.1.1. Action Acquire funding to undertake study and projects 2012 Tile Drainage VF, UF, SF, Priority landowners CA’s, Elgin Elgin Soil Step (e.g., Environmental Farm Plans; HSP; MNR RS, IW, LES identified Stewardship Council and Crop SARSF; CA extension services; SAR FIP). (ESC), CCC, Ontario Imp. Assoc. Nature (Margaret May); unused gov’t funding 1.1.2. Action Develop and provide information packages to 2012 & beyond Tile Drainage VF, UF, SF, All priority CCC with CA input; t.b.d. Step landowners. RS, IW, LES landowners have Elgin Federation of received info Agriculture (EFA) packages 1.1.3. Action Implement at least two projects per year [based 2020 Tile Drainage VF, UF, SF, 18 projects CA’s, ESC t.b.d. Step on 1.1.1] by 2020. RS, IW, LES successfully implemented by 2020

Timeline Threats Targets KEA / Monitoring Potential Leads Costs / Addressed Addressed / (Collaborators) Funding # Objectives and Strategic Actions Recovery Sources Strategy links 1.1.4. Action Lobby for increased funding for EFP’s and other 2013 & beyond Tile Drainage VF, UF, SF, Documented Ontario Nature, t.b.d. Step farm stewardship incentive programs (refer to RS, IW, LES increases in funding Stewardship Network Biodiversity Strategy). for EFP and similar of Ontario programs 2. Objective Increase natural cover of all conservation ongoing All All Trend in extent of Elgin Stewardship t.b.d. target types through restoration by [realistic natural cover (by Council, CA’s, quantifiable target based on GIS analysis] by ecotype) measured Tallgrass Ontario 2020, using existing Elgin Landscape by GIS relative to Strategy and Elgin Greenway mapping (2010 SOLRIS) (including rail, utility and riparian corridors). baseline 2.1. Strategic Identify opportunities for restoration along December 2012 Habitat PS, TF Demonstrated CCC t.b.d Action abandoned rail lines. fragmentation, (primarily, increases in natural invasive although cover and species, fire other connectivity along rail suppression ecotypes lands relative to 2010 may be SOLRIS baseline restored) 2.1.1. Action Determine where abandoned rail lands: a) are December 2012 as above PS, TF as above CCC t.b.d. Step municipally-owned; b) are being turned over to landowners; c) where plans exist for other land uses (e.g., utility corridor). 2.1.2. Action Prioritize sites for restoration based on December 2012 as above PS, TF as above CCC t.b.d. Step opportunities (based on 2.3.1) and ecological values. 2.1.3. Action Secure funding to undertake restoration projects 2013 & onwards as above PS, TF as above Elgin Stewardship t.b.d. Step at priority sites. Council, CA’s 2.1.4 Action Implement restoration at priority sites. 2013 & onwards as above PS, TF as above Elgin Stewardship t.b.d. Step Council, CA’s 2.1.5. Action Include signage, demonstration sites and other 2013 as above PS, TF as above Elgin Stewardship t.b.d. Step communication tools as educational component Council, CA’s for each restoration project. 2.2. Strategic Identify opportunities for restoration on other 2013 all all Documented CCC, CAP Team, t.b.d. Action lands (e.g., along Lake Erie coast, marginal increases in natural Elgin Stewardship agricultural lands, small fields, riparian cover and SAR Council corridors, ravines, gullies, wetlands, etc.). populations. (toward 30% natural cover target?) 43

Timeline Threats Targets KEA / Monitoring Potential Leads Costs / Addressed Addressed / (Collaborators) Funding # Objectives and Strategic Actions Recovery Sources Strategy links 2.2.1. Action Review and update Elgin Landscape Strategy. 2012 all all as above Elgin Stewardship t.b.d. Step Council, CA’s 2.2.2. Action Prioritize sites for restoration based on 2013 all all as above Elgin Stewardship t.b.d. Step opportunities based on ecological values. Council, CA 2.2.3. Action Implement restoration at priority sites 2013 & onward all all as above Elgin Stewardship t.b.d. Step Council, CA’s 2.2.4. Action Include signage, demonstration sites and other 2013 & onward all all as above Elgin Stewardship t.b.d. Step communication tools as educational component Council, CA’s for each restoration project. 3. Objective Protect and enhance functional ecological 2020 Housing VF, UF, SF, PS, Trend in extent of Thames Talbot conservation linkages between and within existing core development / TF, RS, IW, natural cover Land Trust (TTLT), foundations, natural areas (measured using appropriate Habitat loss LES / Acadian connectivity conservation general GIS methods and tools) by 2020 through and Flycatcher, measured by GIS authorities public, securement using existing eco-linkage and fragmentation Crooked-stem relative to 2010 federal and natural heritage system mapping. Aster, SOLRIS baseline and provincial Drooping Greenway mapping agencies Trillium, Eastern Foxsnake, Hooded Warbler, False Rue-anemone, American Chestnut 3.1. Strategic Identify priority sites along Lake Erie 2012 Housing as above GIS measure of lands TTLT t.b.d. (TTLT) action shoreline and coastal riparian corridors (to development under permanent within 5 km of coast) for securement (e.g., protection; GIS ANSIs, PSWs). measure of trend in natural cover over time. 3.1.1. Action Develop a set of defensible scientific criteria to 2012 Housing as above as above TTLT, CCC, NCC t.b.d. (TTLT) Step help select priority securement areas along the development Lake Erie coastline 3.1.2. Action Complete priority parcel mapping. 2012 Housing as above as above TTLT CCC (Trillium step development Fund), NCC 3.1.3. Action Refine criteria to identify specific parcels of land 2012 & beyond Housing as above as above TTLT (confidential) t.b.d. (TTLT) step for potential securement development 44

Timeline Threats Targets KEA / Monitoring Potential Leads Costs / Addressed Addressed / (Collaborators) Funding # Objectives and Strategic Actions Recovery Sources Strategy links 3.2. Strategic Coastal Ravines Area: Develop a multi-year 2011 Housing VF, UF, TS, GIS measure of lands TTLT t.b.d. (TTLT) action program for land securement: development RS, LES / under permanent Acadian protection; GIS Flycatcher, measure of trend in Crooked- natural cover over stem Aster, time. Drooping Trillium, Eastern Foxsnake, Hooded Warbler, False Rue- anemone, American Chestnut 3.2.1. Action Integrate with TTLT’s Strategic Plan 2010 goals 2012 Housing as above as above TTLT TTLT step for land securement. development 3.2.2. Action Establish target for land securement (hectares) 2012 Housing as above as above TTLT TTLT step development 3.2.3. Action Establish securement budget for 3.2.2 2012 Housing as above as above TTLT TTLT step development 3.2.4. Action Establish fund-raising campaign for for 3.2.3 2012 Housing as above as above TTLT TTLT step development 3.2.5. Action Undertake cost-benefit analysis of conservation 2012 Housing as above as above TTLT TTLT step parcel purchases. development 3.2.6. Action Begin site securement. 2016 Housing as above as above TTLT / CA’s TTLT fund- step development raising (potential future Greenlands $?) 3.2.7.. Action Develop capacity to acquire and manage new immediate & Housing as above as above TTLT / CA’s / Elgin t.b.d. step lands through fund-raising and partnerships. ongoing development Stewardship Council

Timeline Threats Targets KEA / Monitoring Potential Leads Costs / Addressed Addressed / (Collaborators) Funding # Objectives and Strategic Actions Recovery Sources Strategy links 3.3. Strategic Identify priority sites beyond 5 km of coast ongoing Housing as above as above t.b.d. action for securement (based primarily on Elgin development / Greenway mapping). Habitat loss and fragmentation 3.3.1. Action Secure priority sites as opportunities arise. ongoing as above as above CA’s, TTLT, Ontario CA, TTLT, step Nature, NCC Ontario Nature, NCC 3.4 Strategic Integrate TTLT's Coastal Ravines campaign 2012- Housing primarily VF, Action steps CCC, TTLT t.b.d. Action with CCC's proposed Lake Erie Coastal development / UF, TF, RS, completed within Stewardship Trail Habitat loss LES timelines and fragmentation 3.4.1. Action Map privately-owned natural areas along the 2012- as above as above Mapping completed. CCC, TTLT t.b.d. step coastal trail in Elgin County 3.4.2. Action Identify natural sites, if and when secured, might 2012- as above as above Sites identified. CCC, TTLT t.b.d. step be suitable for visits by travellers along the coastal trail 3.4.3. Action Develop vegetation management strategy along 2012- as above as above Management strategy CCC, TTLT, t.b.d. step lakeshore roads completed. municipalities 4. Objective Establish and manage functional ecological 2020 Housing VF, UF, SF, Trend in extent of CA’s, Elgin t.b.d. linkages between and within existing core development / PS, TF, RS, natural cover Stewardship natural areas by 2020 through stewardship at Habitat loss IW, LES connectivity Council 60 project sites using Elgin Greenway CAP and measured by GIS and existing natural heritage system fragmentation relative to 2010 mapping (CA’s, Elgin Stewardship Council). SOLRIS baseline and Greenway mapping 4.1 Strategic Identify priority sites along shoreline and 2012 Housing VF, UF, TF, as above CA’s, Elgin t.b.d. action coastal riparian corridors for stewardship development / RS, LES, SF, Stewardship (i.e., restoration, sustainable and Habitat loss PS, IW Council, CCC Lake ecologically-appropriate forest management and Erie Coastal Trail and agricultural practices). fragmentation Initiative 4.1.1. Action Integrate mapping from CCC (Big Picture), CA’s 2012 as above as above as above CCC t.b.d. step and Elgin Stewardship Council 4.1.2. Action Implement stewardship projects at 80 sites. 2012-2018 as above as above as above CA’s, Elgin t.b.d. step Stewardship Council

Timeline Threats Targets KEA / Monitoring Potential Leads Costs / Addressed Addressed / (Collaborators) Funding # Objectives and Strategic Actions Recovery Sources Strategy links 5. Objective Develop an integrated communications and 2013 All All Measures: number of CCC, TTLT t.b.d. outreach strategy to inform Elgin residents communications and stakeholders regarding CAP themes and products produced; objectives, Lake Erie Coastal Trail and stakeholders and TTLT’s Lake Erie Coastal Ravines Initiative. landowners reached; Will include education component re: positive/negative shoreline erosion. responses; tangible actions and projects initiated as a result 5.1. Strategic Design an education and outreach strategy 2013 All All Outreach strategy CCC t.b.d. action for landscape-level and priority site developed. stewardship. 5.1.1. Action Acquire funding to develop Elgin outreach and 2014 All All Funding acquired and CCC (Coastal t.b.d. step marketing strategy (e.g., collaborate with ALUS strategy developed. Program). CA’s, Elgin Bayham Township, theme-based sessions, Stewardship Council, township by township, “Communities in Bloom” - OSCA, EFA, ALUS type program, bus tour, demonstration sites, agricultural fairs, targeting rural non-farm landowners). 5.1.3. Action Identify and collaborate with existing relevant 2013 and All All Partnerships CA’s t.b.d. step outreach programs (ESC, CA’s, Environmental onward established. Farm Plan). 5.2. Strategic Reach 200 landowners with relevant site- 2013 - 2018 All All 200 landowners CCC, CA’s, Elgin t.b.d. Action specific information (re: stewardship) and provided with Stewardship Council, opportunities for support. relevant materials. OSCA, EFA 5.2.1. Action Hold open houses and workshops as directed by 2013 and All All Open houses and CCC (Coastal $20K per step Outreach Strategy (above) (focused – e.g., onward workshops held (as Program), TTLT, township eroded ravines, connecting woodlots, SAR quantified by CA’s, Stewardship habitat). Outreach Strategy) Council, OSCA, EFA) 5.2.2. Action Communicate via neighbour to neighbour / 2012 and All All Local naturalists, t.b.d. step naturalist clubs / youth focus & clubs & onward TTLT, CCC, Elgin stewardship rangers, Environment Leadership Stewardship Council Program / interpretive nature hikes for local schools 5.3. Strategic Lobbying, policy and legislation 2013- All as above EFA, Ontario Nature t.b.d. action

Timeline Threats Targets KEA / Monitoring Potential Leads Costs / Addressed Addressed / (Collaborators) Funding # Objectives and Strategic Actions Recovery Sources Strategy links 5.3.1. CAP team to keep abreast of progress of ALUS 2013- All as above t.b.d. program for Elgin. 6.0 Undertake natural heritage inventory in order completed by Addresses All CCC, naturalist clubs, OMNR, Naturalist County? to update and fill gaps in relation to Species 2016 information OMNR, ON clubs, Elgin County, OMNR At Risk, significant habitats, invasive species gaps, CCC, BSC, TTLT, Species At and other important natural heritage features. contributes to CA’s, Ontario Risk strategic Nature, citizen Research implementation science programs, Fund / of CAP universities and Species At colleges Risk Stewardship Fund 6.1. Strategic Convene all potential partners to scope the 2012 as above All as above as above as above action project, identify roles, capacity and sources of support. 6.1.1. Action Secure funding, identify volunteer coordinators, 2013 as above all as above as above as above step etc. 6.1.2. Action Compile existing literature and data sources. 2013 as above all as above as above as above Step 6.1.3. Action Develop survey protocols, methodologies, 2013 as above all as above as above as above Step survey needs, etc. 6.1.4. Action Undertake land owner contact. 2013-2015 as above all as above as above as above Step 6.1.5. Action Undertake inventory. 2013-2016 as above all as above as above as above Step 7. Objective Prevent and control the spread of new 2012 & onward Dog- VF, UF, PS, Trend shows Ontario Invasive t.b.d. populations of high priority terrestrial strangling TF, RS, LES improved FQA’s Plant Council, invasive plant species at critical sites in Elgin Vine, Giant undertaken at priority County weed County. Hogweed, sites (e.g., SAR inspector, Ontario Garlic habitat) by Phragmites Mustard, consultants or Working Group, Autumn Olive, volunteers OMNR Common Reed (Phragmites australis)

Timeline Threats Targets KEA / Monitoring Potential Leads Costs / Addressed Addressed / (Collaborators) Funding # Objectives and Strategic Actions Recovery Sources Strategy links 7.1.Strategic Assemble existing information about extent 2012 & onward as above as above as above as above t.b.d. Action and control methods of high priority invasive plant species 7.1.1. Action Meet and coordinate with provincial and 2012 & onward as above as above as above as above t.b.d. Step other groups/agencies 7.1.2. Action Compile existing literature and data sources. 2012 as above all as above as above t.b.d. Step 7.1.3. Action Build knowledge base regarding Elgin 2012 & onward as above as above as above as above t.b.d. Step occurrences of these species (e.g., through Natural Heritage Inventory and citizen science). 7.2.Strategic Provide educational materials re: problematic 2012 & onward as above as above as above as above t.b.d. Action invasive species to local nurseries and the general public. 7.3 Implement invasive species control at high 2013 & onward As above As above As above As above t.b.d. priority sites. 8. Objective Reduce road mortality of small animals at 2013-2016 and Road mortality SAR birds, Monitoring by Leads and roles to t.b.d. key sites. onward mammals, volunteers be delegated amphibians demonstrates through Natural and reptiles declines in roadkill Heritage Inventory numbers (reflecting group (naturalist increases or clubs, OMNR, stabilization of living Ontario Road populations); Ecology Working methodology t.b.d. Group, Ontario Nature, Metro Zoo, Ontario Road Superintendents Association) 8.1. Action Map important road crossing sites for ongoing & as as above as above as above as above t.b.d. Step reptiles, amphibians and other terrestrial part of NHI SAR in Elgin County. 8.1.1. Action Compile any existing roadkill databases 2013 as above as above as above as above t.b.d. Step pertaining to Elgin County. 8.1.2. Action Include roadkill reporting as part of Natural 2013-2015 as above as above as above as above t.b.d. Step Heritage Inventory.

Timeline Threats Targets KEA / Monitoring Potential Leads Costs / Addressed Addressed / (Collaborators) Funding # Objectives and Strategic Actions Recovery Sources Strategy links 8.1.3. Action Educate through meeting/presentation to Ontario 2012 as above as above as above CCC Social t.b.d. Step Road Superintendents Association and Marketing Program municipal road authority (and involve them in gathering data). 8.1.4. Action Educate general public and students (i.e., 2013-2014 as above as above as above CCC? Stewardship t.b.d. Step relevant school programs) regarding: 1) scale Council, CA’s, and impact of road mortality on at risk Ontario Nature populations; 2) how to prevent road mortality; 3) building hibernacula and artificial nesting sites away from roads; 4) assisting movement of turtles across the road; 5) reporting roadkill and other sightings to Ontario Nature, NHIC, local conservation authority, etc. 8.1.5. Action Educate municipal officials re: road mortality 2015 as above as above as above OMNR, CCC, CAP t.b.d. Step issues, science, species identification and Team options for reducing impacts (e.g., signage, underpasses, seasonal road closures, reduced speed limits, etc.) 8.1.6. Action Encourage local naturalist clubs to include 2012 as above as above as above TTLT, naturalist clubs t.b.d. Step reptile, amphibian and SAR roadkill reports (and locations) as part of their regular reporting. 8.1.7. Action Explore opportunities for road closures 2012-2016 as above as above as above CAP Team t.b.d. Step (seasonal or permanent) based on ecological criteria (e.g., from NHI) and levels of use. 9. Objective Improve roadside habitat for pollinating 2012 Declining VF, UF, SF, Documented CCC, Ontario Road t.b.d. insects pollinator PS, IW, LES changes in roadside Ecology Working populations, maintenance Group, Elgin herbicides and practices. Stewardship insecticides Council, local (road partners maintenance impacts) 9.1.Strategic Encourage municipalities not to spray 2012 as above as above as above as above t.b.d. Action herbicides or mow roadsides until late autumn.

Timeline Threats Targets KEA / Monitoring Potential Leads Costs / Addressed Addressed / (Collaborators) Funding # Objectives and Strategic Actions Recovery Sources Strategy links 9.1.1. Action Explain cost-savings and that roadside 2012 as above as above as above CCC t.b.d. Step maintenance goals can be achieved with fewer resources and expenditures. 9.1.2. Action Educate public regarding 9.1.1. 2012 as above as above as above CCC t.b.d. Step 10. Objective Improve forest habitat quality and reduce 2012-2016 Habitat loss UF, SF, TF, FQA used by Tree Commissioner, threats to priority species and community and VF, PS, RS, volunteers or OMNR (MFTIP, types. degradation LES, SAR consultants to CLTIP), Ontario due to forest interior monitor priority sites; Forestry incompatible birds documented Association, Ontario forestry changes/improvemen Woodlot Owners ts to local forestry Association, Elgin- practices. Middlesex Woodlot Owners Association 10.1.Strategic Promote best management practices 2012-2016 as above as above as above County tree OMNR SAR Action (selective logging) for woodlot owners commissioner, Stewardship having priority species and communities on CA’s, CCC, OMNR Fund, federal their lands. (MFTIP) Habitat Stewardship Program 10.1.1. Action Identify key forest parcels based on NHIC, Elgin 2012-2015 as above as above as above CAP Team As above Step Landscape Strategy and other SAR datasets, as well as new information gathered during Natural Heritage Inventory. 10.1.2. Action Provide appropriate educational materials to ongoing as above as above as above CA’s, Elgin As above Step these landowners, and encourage them to Stewardship Council, participate in relevant forest management Ontario Woodlot programs (e.g., MFTIP) and to join woodlot Owners Association, association(s). Elgin-Middlesex Woodlot Owners Association

Timeline Threats Targets KEA / Monitoring Potential Leads Costs / Addressed Addressed / (Collaborators) Funding # Objectives and Strategic Actions Recovery Sources Strategy links 11. Objective Manage problematic native species ongoing Problematic VF, UF, SF, FQA used by OFAH, OMNR, t.b.d populations. native species PS, TF, RS, volunteers or municipalities, (e.g., White- IW, LES consultants to “Elgin County (specific actions to be prioritized based on tailed Deer, monitor priority sites; stakeholders / Natural Heritage Inventory results) Wild Turkey, documented hunters group”, Canada reductions in CAP Team Goose) populations of problematic species. 12. Objective By 2015, develop a complementary strategy 2015- Loss of prime Sustainable Trend in number of ALUS program; ALUS, EFP to promote sustainable agricultural practices agricultural Agriculture; farmers participating Elgin Federation of in Elgin County. land; Excess SA, TF, PS, in Environmental Agriculture (EFA); nitrogen in RS, IW, LES, Farm Plans (EFPs), National Farmers soil VF, UF, SF Alternative Land Use Union System (ALUS) and other stewardship initiatives. 5.6. Strategic Promote the expansion of ALUS-type program 2013? All VF, UF, SF, Number of EFA, ALUS t.b.d. action for Elgin County. PS, TF, SA, landowners RS, IW participating in ALUS- type program; trend in overall area (# of ha) benefitting from program 13. Objective Develop a complementary strategy to 2013 Tourism & all Ecotourism strategy CCC (Coastal Trail t.b.d. promote eco-tourism in Elgin County. recreational developed Program), Elgin development County 13.1.1. Action Contact tourism-related agencies and 2012 as above as above as above Elgin County (tourism t.b.d. Step organizations about EGCAP/LECRI staff) 13.1.2. Identify birding hotspots along coast 2012 as above as above as above Bird Studies Canada, t.b.d. Strategic naturalist clubs Action

References

Allan, J.D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 35:257–284.

Anderson, M.G. and S.L. Bernstein (eds.). 2003. Planning methods for ecoregional targets: Matrix- forming ecosystems. The Nature Conservancy, Conservation Science Support, Northeast and Caribbean Division, Boston, MA. On-line document: http://conserveonline.org/docs/2005/03/Matrix_Methods.pdf

Cadman, M.D., Sutherland, D.A., Beck, G.G., Lepage, D. and A.R. Couturier. 2005. Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario 2001-2005. Published by: Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature.

Bakowsky, W. and J.L. Riley. 1994. A survey of the prairies and savannahs of southern Ontario. In Wickett, R.G., P.D. Lewis, A. Woodliffe and P. Pratt (Ed). Proceedings of the Thirteenth North American Prairie Conference. Windsor Dept. of Parks and Recreation.

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2, 270pp. Accompanied by Map P.2175 (coloured), scale 1:600 000.

Cudmore, B., C.A. MacKinnon and S.E. Madzia. 2004. Aquatic species at risk in the Thames River watershed, Ontario. Can. MS Rpt. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2707: v + 123 p.

Davis, M.B. (ed) (1996). Eastern old-growth forests: prospects for rediscovery and recovery. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Elgin Stewardship Council. 2005. Elgin Landscape Strategy: Identifying and Prioritizing Stewardship Options in Elgin County. Elgin Stewardship Council, Aylmer, ON. 41 pp.

Henson, B.L. and K.E. Brodribb. 2005. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity. Volume 2. Ecodistrict Summaries. Nature Conservancy of Canada. 344 pp.

Kanter, M., Bowles, J.M., Oldham, M.J. and R. Klinkenberg (eds). 1993. Significant Natural Areas of Elgin County, Ontario 1985-1986, Volume 2: Natural History & Annotated Checklists.

Langman, R. C. 1971. Patterns of Settlement in Southern Ontario. McClelland and Stewart Limited, Toronto, Canada.

Larson, B.M., J.L. Riley, E.A. Snell and H.G. Godschalk. 1999. The Woodland Heritage of Southern Ontario: A Study of Ecological Change, Distribution and Significance. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills, Ontario. 262 pp.

Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

Lindsay, K.M. 1984. Life Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest in Site District 7-2: A Review and Assessment of Significant Natural Areas. Parks and Recreational Areas Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Central Region, Richmond Hill, Ontario and Southwestern Region, London, Ontario. viii + 131 pp. + folded map, illus.

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopaedia of life. Version 4.5. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Accessed: November 2011.

NHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre). 20011. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Available: http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhic_.cfm. Accessed November 2011.

Norfolk Environmental Advisory Committee. (2006). State of the Environment Poster. Norfolk County. Version 1.

Parks Canada. 2011. Southwold Earthworks National Historic Site of Canada. http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn- nhs/on/southwold/index.aspx. Accessed November 2011.

Pickett, S.T.A. and J. Thompson. 1978. Patch dynamics and the design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation 13:27-37.

Reville, F. D. 1920. The History of the County of Brant. Hurley Printing Company, Brantford, Ontario. 385 pp.

Riley, J.L. and P. Mohr. 1994. The natural heritage of southern Ontario’s settled landscapes. A review of conservation and restoration ecology for land-use and landscape planning. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southern Region, Aurora, Science and Technology Transfer, Technical Report, TR-001. 78 pp.

Shugart, H.H. and D.C. West. 1981. Long-term dynamics of forest ecosystems. American Scientist 69:647-652.

Snell, E.A. 1987. Wetland Distribution in Southern Ontario. Working Paper No. 48. Canada Land Use Monitoring Program, Environment Canada.

Solymár, B, M. Kanter and N. May. 2008. Caring for Nature in Norfolk: Landowner Action in Carolinian Canada. Carolinian Canada Coalition. 10 pp.

Statistics Canada. 2007. 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591- XWE. Ottawa. Released March 13, 2007. Available: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/index.cfm?Lang=E Accessed October 2011

Appendix A Elgin County Greenway Mapping Methodology

Scope

The project area is the County of Elgin. A 10km buffer was used in order to avoid exclusion of natural features falling just outside of the county, such as Clear Creek, Skunk’s Misery, Dereham Wetland, First Nations’ lands and South Dorchester Swamp. Any individual land use polygon with a centroid falling within Elgin County or its 10km buffer was included in the mapping analysis. Using this approach, entire polygons were either included or excluded; none were divided.

Data Layers

The data layer SOLRIS v1.2 was the primary component used to create the Elgin County Greenway Mapping. The Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System, or SOLRIS, was developed by the Ontario Ministry on Natural Resources (see document entitled Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS) - Phase 2 - Data Specifications, Version 1.2, April, 2008) for details about this data layer.

Elgin County Greenway Mapping consists of two maps: 1) Priorities for Conservation and Restoration; and 2) Land Use Policy. Both are described in more detail below.

Map 1: Priorities for Conservation and Restoration

Goal of Map

The goal of the Priorities for Conservation and Restoration map is to provide a tool to guide restoration, stewardship and land securement in Elgin County.

Identification of Core Habitats

Areas of natural cover shown on the Greenway maps have been placed into one of the following categories: Priority 1 Core, Priority 2 Core, Priority 3 Core, or Supporting Natural Cover. The category indicates that area’s ecological importance as part of the Elgin County Greenway. Areas categorized as Priority 1 Core are greater than 1500 hectares in size and represent the largest and most intact areas of natural cover in Elgin County. Areas categorized as Priority 2 Core are between 501 and 1500 hectares in size. Areas categorized as Priority 3 Core are between 200 and 500 hectares and, although smaller than Priority 1 and 2 Cores, nonetheless are an important part of the Greenway system, especially when they are located in areas without much overall natural cover. Areas categorized as Supporting Natural Cover are important as stepping stones between core areas.

The categorization of areas of natural cover was based on the overall size of each area. The assessment ignored all fragmenting features with a width of 25 metres or less (e.g., minor roads, trails, power lines). In other words, two or more areas of natural cover separated by a road 25 metres or less in width were considered to be one area. Also, adjacent areas of natural cover (e.g., an area of forest adjacent to an area of marsh) were treated as one area. The criteria are shown in Table A1.

Table A1: Criteria for Identification of Core Habitats Category Size (ha) Fragmenting features Priority 1 Core >1500 <25m Priority 2 Core 501 - 1500 <25m Priority 3 Core 200 - 500 <25m Supporting Nature Cover < 200 <25m

Stewardship Focus Areas

Stewardship Focus Areas were created by placing a 750 metre1 buffer around all areas identified as Priority 1, Priority 2 and Priority 3 Cores. The intention of the Stewardship Focus Areas is to recognize the value of Cores that are in close proximity to one another, and to highlight areas between and surrounding core areas where opportunities to enlarge or connect core areas through restoration may exist.

Shoreline Buffer

The Shoreline Buffer is intended to emphasize the importance of the Lake Erie shoreline as an important corridor for migrating birds and other animals. The Shoreline Buffer was created by identifying all areas of natural cover within 0.6 km of the Lake Erie shoreline, then buffering these areas with a 1 km buffer2.

Priority Headwater Streams

Watercourses designated as Priority Headwater Streams represent areas identified by the group as priorities for restoration.

Map 2: Land Use Policy

Goal of Map

The goal of the Land Use Policy map is to provide a tool to highlight priorities for land use policy in Elgin County.

Identification of Natural Heritage Features

The map indicates the locations of evaluated wetlands (PSW and non-PSW), Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (Life Science and Earth Science ANSIs) and freshwater streams.

In addition, an analysis was conducted using the SOLRIS data layer to identify areas of forest and other natural cover that are likely to meet the suggested criteria for the identification of Significant Woodlands3 in planning areas with 15-30% natural cover. All areas of natural cover > 20ha in size were identified, as were areas > 10ha in size that occur within 50 metres of a watercourse.

Footnotes and References

1. We used the definition of a wetland complex from the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Manual

(May 1994 revised). 2. Evaluation by The Nature Conservancy of stopover sites for migratory birds in the western Lake Erie basin ranked undeveloped cover within 1.6km of the Lake Erie shoreline as high or very high for landbirds and raptors (Ewert, et al., 2006). 3. We used the size and water protection criteria from the Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 – second edition (March 2010).

Askins, R.A. 2000. Restoring North America’s Birds. Lessons from Landscape Ecology. Yale University. 320pp.

Bakker, V.J. 2006. Microhabitat features influence the movements of red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) on unfamiliar ground. Journal of Mammalogy 87(1): 124-130.

Environment Canada. 2004. How Much Habitat is Enough? A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Second Edition. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 80pp.

Ewert, David N., et al. 2006. Migratory bird stopover site attributes in the western Lake Erie basin.

Newcomb Homan, R., B.S. Windmiller, J.M. Reed. 2004. Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss for two vernal pool-breeding amphibians. Ecological Applications 14 (5): 1547-1553.

Ruefenacht, B. and R.L. Knight. 1995. Influence of corridor continuity and width on survival and movement of deermice. Biological Conservation 71: 269- 274.

Appendix B: Natural Heritage Designations – Elgin Greenway CAP Area

Natural Area Name Natural Heritage Designation* Size (ha) Crane CA Conservation Authority Area 3 Dutton-Dunwich CA Conservation Authority Area 0.92 Feasby CA Conservation Authority Area 7.8 E.M. Warwick CA Conservation Authority Area 14 Dan Patterson CA Conservation Authority Area 73.7 Dalewood CA Conservation Authority Area 242 Union Pond CA Conservation Authority Area 11.3 Confederation Park (Belmont CA) Conservation Authority Area 8.5 Lake Whittaker CA Conservation Authority Area 166.3 Kirk Cousins Management Area Conservation Authority Area 46.1 Springwater CA Conservation Authority Area 150 Archie Coulter CA Conservation Authority Area 55 Yarmouth Natural Heritage Area Conservation Authority Area 84 Port Bruce Provincial Park Provincial Park 231 Port Burwell Provincial Park Provincial Park 2 John E. Pearce Nature Reserve Provincial Park 68 Elgin Crossroads Unconformity Provincial Earth Science ANSI 0.18 Catfish Creek Till Provincial Earth Science ANSI 640.13 Lake Erie Shorecliff (Malahide Formation / Provincial Earth Science ANSI 61.76 Bradtville / Boy Scout Camp) Sparta Raised Beaches Provincial Earth Science ANSI 77.48 Port Stanley Till Provincial Earth Science ANSI 915.67 Elgin and Kent County Shoreline Provincial Life Science ANSI 520 (124.11 in Elgin Co.) Thames River Floodplain Provincial Life Science ANSI 386.16 (within Elgin) Talbot Creek Provincial Life Science ANSI 461.58 Springwater Forest Provincial Life Science ANSI 236.35 Big Otter Creek Valley Provincial Life Science ANSI 411.33 Lakeview South Regional Life Science ANSI 80 Mount Salem Forest Regional Life Science ANSI 240 Big Otter Creek South of Bayham Regional Life Science ANSI ~300 Catfish Creek Slope and Floodplain Regional Life Science ANSI 170 West Lorne Woods Life Science Site 380 West Lorne Woods Railway Prairie Life Science Site ~1 Dutton-Dunwich Prairie Life Science Site 10 Dunwich Prairie and Swamp Life Science Site 250 Thames River Floodplain Life Science Site 425 Allan Craig Woods? Life Science Site 258 Talbot Creek Life Science Site 551

Natural Area Name Natural Heritage Designation* Size (ha) Kettle Creek Oxbow Marsh Life Science Site 14.89 Catfish Creek Slope and Floodplain Forest Life Science Site 942 Summers Corners Swamp Forest Life Science Site 182 Bayham Townline Woods Life Science Site 424 Little Otter Creek Valley Life Science Site 338 Little Otter Creek Valley Complex Life Science Site 1105 Little Jerry Creek Locally Significant Life Science 130 Site (proposed Bayham OP) Iroquois Beach (within Port Burwell P.P.) Locally Significant Life Science 135 Site (proposed Bayham OP) Thames River Floodplain – Wetland PS Wetland 30 Talbot Rivermouth Swamp PS Wetland 43.7 Kettle Creek Woods – Wetland PS Wetland 60.77 Beaver Creek Wetland PS Wetland 89.93 East Belmont Wetland PS Wetland 1.6 Glenworth Wetland Complex PS Wetland 35.57 Hawk Cliff Wetland PS Wetland 21.56 Springwater Conservation Area (Central Elgin) PS Wetland 3.14 Springwater Conservation Area (Malahide) PS Wetland 45.37 Yarmouth Natural Heritage Area Wetland PS Wetland 26.03 King/Smith Swamp PS Wetland 32.23 West Dutton Woodlot PS Wetland 186.3 Aylmer Wildlife Management Area PS Wetland 22.05 East Belmont Wetland PS Wetland 25.38 Allen White Wetland PS Wetland 2.69 Southwold Woods Swamp PS Wetland 11.49 A2 Tait’s Bush PS Wetland 7.09 Brock Creek Wetland PS Wetland 32.55 Buttinger Swamp PS Wetland 61.06 Eagle Woodlot PS Wetland 158.16 Ferndell Complex PS Wetland 68.76 Heron Woods Complex PS Wetland 72.04 New Glasgow Woodlot PS Wetland 32.84 North Rodney Woodlot PS Wetland 150.37 Reive Bog PS Wetland 42.72 South Rodney Woodlot PS Wetland 36.06 Taylor Pond Complex PS Wetland 89.69 West Lorne Woodlot PS Wetland 179.05 Elgin Nature Reserve Wetland Complex PS Wetland 67.76 Silver Creek Wetland Complex PS Wetland 122.06 Calton Swamp Wetland Complex PS Wetland 62 Dexter Woodlot Other Wetland 11.08 EY1 Other Wetland 6.93

Natural Area Name Natural Heritage Designation* Size (ha) EY10 Other Wetland 4.27 EY15 Other Wetland 2.36 EY24 Other Wetland 1.25 EY6 Other Wetland 19.06 EY9 Other Wetland 2.15 Avon Wetland Other Wetland 27.87 EM11/EM18 Other Wetland 28.78 EM19/EM6 Other Wetland 11.11 EM7 Other Wetland 15.84 EM8 Other Wetland 3 ESD5 Other Wetland 1.6 EY6 Other Wetland 1.02 MN4 Other Wetland 3.27 Van Roeseted Swamp Other Wetland 8.71 DeDeckere-Lindsay Swamp Other Wetland 4.87 ES1 Wetland Other Wetland 13.59 ES2 Other Wetland 3.49 Port Stanly Poison Sumac Swamp Other Wetland 6.86 Sloan’s Wetland Other Wetland 15.64 Thomas Swamp Other Wetland 12.33 A5 Other Wetland 5.80 AL17 Other Wetland 17.36 Howse Buttonbush Swamp Other Wetland 18.7 Port Glasgow Woodlot Other Wetland 9.11 Simpson’s Bush Other Wetland 5.39 Talbot River – Wetland Other Wetland 480 Catfish Creek Slope and Floodplain Forest Carolinian Canada Site 204.3 Little Otter Creek Valley Forest International Biological Program 97.1 Thames River Floodplain International Biological Program 20.2 Catfish Creek Sand Slope and Flood Plain International Biological Program 20.2 Southwest Elgin Forest Complex Important Bird Area 13,595 Ekfrid Forest CA (outside CAP, within 10km Conservation Authority Area 41 buffer) Big Bend CA (outside CAP, within 10km buffer) Conservation Authority Area 16 Hawkins Tract (outside CAP, within 10km Conservation Authority Area 40 buffer) *ANSI = Area of Natural and Scientific Interest, PS = Provincially Significant

APPENDIX C. RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES IN SELECTED SPECIES AT RISK (SAR) RECOVERY STRATEGIES RELEVANT TO ELGIN GREENWAY CAP

Bolded activities are part of the CAP

Habitat Key: Woodlands Carolinian Warbler Hooded Acadian Flyc Chestnut American Butternut Warbler Hooded Red Mulberry Snake Hog Eastern Tallgrass FW = Forests & Woodlands SW = Swamp Forests

PS = Prairies & Savannahs

TE = Thickets & Edges

atcher / atcher SD = Sand Dunes & Beaches nosed

WA = Open Wetland & Aquatic

Recovery Strategy Status (A=available; AP=part D A A A A A A D of ecosystem strategy; D=Draft) Habitat FW FW FW FW FW FW FW, PS PS, TE Habitat Threats / Viablity Assessment H H H Update NHIC & central databases H H X Inventory H H M H X Standardized habitat classification & mapping M H H Identify priority sites & landowners H X Review land uses Ecosystem modeling PVA / MVP M M Investigate recreational impacts H Investigate Invasive plant Impacts H L Investigate invasive aquatic spp. Impacts Locate & monitor disease-resistant plants L H Research mechanisms to control disease H M Investigate deer impacts H Investigate Wild Turkey Impacts Investigate invasive insect impacts H Investigate baitfish harvest impacts Investigate impacts of alterations to drainage H Survey with other SAR H Gather TEK / ATK M Investigate commercial Supply & Demand L Demographic, genetic studies, dispersal, pop`n M M H modeling Investigate impacts of contaminants L Investigate climate change impacts Crayfish surveys Investigate conservation tillage, sustainable X agriculture, soil restoration

Habitat Key: Woodlands Carolinian Warbler Hooded Acadian Flyc Chestnut American Butternut Warbler Hooded Red Mulberry Snake Hog Eastern Tallgrass FW = Forests & Woodlands SW = Swamp Forests

PS = Prairies & Savannahs

TE = Thickets & Edges

atcher / atcher SD = Sand Dunes & Beaches nosed

WA = Open Wetland & Aquatic

Investigate reintroduction opportunities M Investigate Best Management Techniques H X Investigate existing management at sites Monitor Management Techniques X Ensure confidentiality of EO data Initiate Public Reporting Program H H Manage for habitat mosaics Develop & Apply Monitoring protocol H H H M H X Monitor slumping impacts Develop & Distribute BMPs H X M H X Input into Official Plans, etc. H H H X Develop appropriate EIS guidelines H Identify key restoration sites H M X Restore sites using appropriate techniques H X X Restore historic sites X Restore / maintain habitat linkages H M X Encourage cover crops M Restrict livestock access M Encourage low tillage M Support habitat improvement projects X Support development of EFPs M Expand / Enhance Forest Interior H X Identify / Increase Older Growth Forests M X Develop & Distribute Appropriate Forest / Woodlot H X H Management Guidelines Reduce Forestry Impacts H X Develop Guidelines for Managing Succession in X Conifer Plantations Develop & implement management plans H H X Signage H Reduce invasive species impacts H H Reduce trail / off-trail impacts H Encourage natural shoreline processes Ensure natural water supply and flow regimes Collect seed and propagate plants M H M (Re-)introduce to enhance populations L M Liaise with First Nations X X Collaborate with other conservation initiatives H M X 62

Habitat Key: Woodlands Carolinian Warbler Hooded Acadian Flyc Chestnut American Butternut Warbler Hooded Red Mulberry Snake Hog Eastern Tallgrass FW = Forests & Woodlands SW = Swamp Forests

PS = Prairies & Savannahs

TE = Thickets & Edges

atcher / atcher SD = Sand Dunes & Beaches nosed

WA = Open Wetland & Aquatic

Integrate SAR communications H H X X Integrate SAR enforcement H X Apply / Promote Property Tax Incentives H X X "Soft" Incentives to Protect Forest Habitat X Secure Key Sites through Easements and Acquisition X X X Use Carbon Offset Programs to Increase Habitat X Forest Certification X Prepare landowner rights & trespass materials Prepare & Distribute Educational Materials H X L H X Educate Commercial interests (pet trade, nurseries, H H X horticulturalists, landscapers) Conduct Information Sessions H X Deer population control H Support development of protective legislation H X Develop / improve protective policies H M Recognize good stewards X Develop communications strategey ? H H X Rank / evaluate conservation methods H Restrict movement of plants M L Establish Tallgrass Institute, maintain Tallgrass X Ontario Partnerships with academia H Training program for conservation practioners H Update Big Picture / NH mapping H Determine effective invasive spp. Controls H Community-based CAPs H Evaluate & improve protected area management M Promote better controls at border crossings M Support environmental lobbying M

APPENDIX D. SPECIES-SPECIFIC THREATS TO ELGIN GREENWAY SAR. O=Ontario-wide threats, OE=Ontario-wide threats also documented in Elgin County.

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

Limited by availability of suitable habitat; Incompatible Forestry: Acadian O O O O O O 1. VF; 2. UF; 3. MF O? O diameter-limit harvesting, canopy opening; Brown-headed Flycatcher E E E E E E Cowbird nest parasitism; Predators? Limited by low population density and large home ranges, low American 1. PS; 2. TF; 3. AG; O O O O O O reproductive capacity, presence of deep sandy soils suitable for Badger O 4. VF E E E? E? E E? dens; reduced prey availability; predation by coyotes and domestic

dogs; incidental trapping; canine distemper and tularemia American O O O Main threat is Chestnut blight (C. parasitica); Limited by self- 1.UF; 2. VF; 3. AG O O O O Chestnut E E E incompatible breeding system and low seed dispersal Limited by specialized habitat requirements, climate, and dynamic population fluctuations; invasive species (Phragmites, hybrid cattail, Reed Canary Grass); erosion (boat traffic); changes to American 1. RS; 2. IW; 3. O O O O O O O shorelines, rivers, or lake beds; lowering pH to less than 5.5; Water-willow LES? industrial pollution; changes to nutrient levels; dams; herbivory (white-tailed deer) Note: Only known population is protected at Port Burwell PP.

Bald Eagle Limited by availability of nest sites (large tall trees) and naturally 1. MF; 2. UF; 3. O O? O O O (STATUS low reproductive output; Pollution (mercury, lead, pesticides); REPORT NOT LES; 4. RS; 5. IW E E? E E E AVAILABLE) disturbance during nesting; disease (botulism?)

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

Limited by specialized habitat requirements; bank alteration; runoff; drainage pattern/rate changes; sewage disposal; chemicals/pollution; dams and impoundments (may not use Black fishways); incidental harvest; introduction of sport fish (predators 4. RS O O O O O O O Redhorse or competitors) Note: No recent records in Elgin County, however it is difficult to identify this species; creel surveys often do not identify redhorses to species. Limited by naturally low recruitment, low dispersal, long 1. IW; 2. RS; 3. generation time; road mortality (female-biased); availability of Blanding’s O O O O? O O O O LES; 4. UF 5. TF? nesting habitat; unusually high levels of predation (esp. nests); Turtle E E E E? E E E E 6. VF? fragmentation and isolation of populations (roads/urbanization)?; sarcophagid fly infestation of nests?

Blue Ash 1.Rich floodplain Indiscriminate forestry; livestock grazing prevents seedling forests (VF? O establishment; low reproduction at some sites (cause not identified) (STATUS O O? O REPORT NOT RS?MF?); 2.PS E AVAILABLE) (alvars); 3.TF Broad Beech Trampling during maple sugar operations; damage to plants and Fern O O O 1. MF O habitat during forestry operations; Limited by low tolerance to (STATUS E E E REPORT NOT environmental changes. AVAILABLE)

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

1. RS; 2. UF?; 3. VF?; 4. TF? Main threat is butternut canker; Limited by short life-span, short occasionally found dispersal distance, low genetic diversity, specific conditions for along roads through O regeneration; incompatible forest management: intentional O O O Butternut forests, along forest O O E O harvesting (in anticipation of disease), indiscriminate removal of E E E edges, in clearings trees that have canker (prevents natural development of resistance), (wherever enough indiscriminate silvicultural practices; diseases and pests; excessive sunlight to support seed predation; hybridization with exotic Juglans species seed regeneration) Limited by high breeding site fidelity and threats in wintering grounds; acid rain; stream pollution, Forestry practices: remove most mature trees and open canopy (diameter-limit /diameter-cut, Cerulean O O O O 2. UF O maintaining young, even-aged stands through short rotations); Warbler E E E E? brown-headed cowbird brood-parasitism; light pollution, Forest pests? (emerald ash borer? Tent caterpillar? Gypsy moth?) disease? (oak wilt) Loss or degradation of nesting and roosting sites (changes to chimneys, loss of large-diameter hollow trees); reduced abundance Food: IW, RS, LES and quality of prey; bioaccumulation of pesticides; disturbance during breeding period (nest removal, chimney sweeping); Chimney natural nest sites: O O O? O O O O O O competition with European Starlings for nest sites; accidental Swift VF, MF, UF mortality (asphyxiation or burns in chimney); road mortality; predation; West Nile Virus (tested positive in US) Note: NHIC does not have any records from Elgin County. Threats likely similar to rest of province.

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

Limited by availability of suitable habitat, low dispersal ability, does not survive transplantation (possible obligate symbiotic O O O O Colicroot 6. PS; 7. TF O O O? relationship with mycorrhizal fungus); absence of natural or E E E E prescribed fire; garbage/fill dumping; mowing (accidental mortality); harvesting (in US) Common Limited by availability of sandy substrates used for overwintering; 1. UF; 2. PS; 3. O O O O O O O O Five-Lined vegetation succession (suppression of fire/other disturbances?); LES' E E E E? E E E E? Skink subsidized predators Dioecious, requires cross-pollination, sex ratio skewed towards males; cottage development; beach grooming; deer browsing; Common O Double Crested Cormorant nesting colonies (may also benefit 1. LES; O O? O Hoptree E hoptree by opening canopy to create more habitat); twig boring beetle; fire suppression or beach stabilization? Note: Documented populations all protected in provincial parks. Limited by life history characteristics (late maturity, long lifespan, low recruitment, reliance on low adult mortality) and climate; road Common 1. IW; 2. RS; 3. O O O O O O O mortality (female-biased); fragmentation (roads); high nest Snapping OE? O LES; E E E E E E E predation rates; harvesting for food or fish bait; incidental Turtle mortality (angling activities, boats); damage or destruction of nests (gravelling, grading); sarcophagid fly infestation of nests?

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

Limited by semi-obligate out-breeding system (requires genetically different individuals to produce seed); Forestry: clear-cutting, 1. RS; 2. VF (edge); heavy selective timber harvesting, damage; erosion due to tile Crooked- O O O O O O 3. TF (forest edge drainage or other agricultural activities; garlic mustard; trampling stem Aster E E E E E E and roadsides) by off-road vehicles Note: 19 of 22 known populations in 1999 Status Report found in Elgin County Limited by climate and lack of disturbance (e.g. fire); over-grazing; Dense O O O O O O O 1. PS; 2. IW O hybridization and genetic erosion (cultivated varieties available at Blazing-star E E E E E? E E? garden centres); herbicide application; mowing Limited by low dispersal ability, low seed production, climate; excessive opening of canopy; dumping; decreased soil moisture; Drooping O O O O O? O? O 1. VF; 2. MF O exotic earthworms; herbivory/browsing/grazing?; garlic mustard; Trillium E E E E? E? E? E honeysuckles Note: selective logging at one Elgin site Main threat is dogwood anthracnose fungus; fire suppression and Eastern forest succession (closed canopy results in reduced EFD vigour 1. UF; fencerows O O O O O O O Flowering and encourages fungal growth); reduced probability of seed and roadsides E E E E E E E Dogwood dispersal; restricted gene flow (possibly reducing ability to develop natural resistance to anthracnose); insects and pests

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

Limited by fidelity to hibernacula, communal use of hibernacula, 1. IW; 2. PS; 3. TF; number of suitable hibernacula available; alteration of distribution 4. MF; 5. RS; 6. of wetland/forest/field mosaics; roads and other barriers; LES; 7. VF; 8. UF; Eastern O O O O O O O O disturbance of hibernacula or nests; accidental mortality from 9. AG? O Foxsnake E E E E E E E E human activities; loss of suitable microhabitats (shedding sites) (anthropogenic and replacement with less suitable anthropogenic features; limited features, not availability of natural oviposition sites (reliance on compost piles cropland) leads to mortality) Limited by prey specialization, climate, low population densities; Eastern Hog- 1. LES; 2. RS; IW; O O O O O O E? roads; pesticides (reduced fitness and reproductive success, prey nosed Snake TF; UF; PS E E E E E E abundance) Eastern Musk Egg and hatchling survival vulnerable to weather extremes and O O O Turtle 1. IW, 2. RS, O O flooding; shoreline development and wetland drainage; accidental E E E (Stinkpot) mortality (angling activities, boats); killing by anglers when caught 1. IW; 2. RS; 3. Limited by habitat (ponds/wetlands bordered by dense vegetation) Eastern LES: 4. VF; O O O O O O and prey specialization (amphibians); declines in prey abundance; (Northern) OE? Nesting: TF, PS, E E E E E E boat mortality?; subsidized predators; Lack of suitable habitat in Ribbonsnake UF Elgin? Note: No known extant native occurrences in Elgin County. Eastern Literature report from 1922 (1924?): Area is now under intensive Prickly Pear 1. LES, 2. PS, 3. TF O O O agriculture. The only known native occurrences in Ontario are in Cactus Essex County (Point Pelee National Park) and Pelee Island. Cultivated varieties available from some garden centres.

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

Limited by strong preference for sandy substrates (not silt or cobble); increased siltation; impoundments; stream channel and flow modifications; excessive nutrient enrichment and turbidity; round goby; incidental harvest in commercial bait fisheries; aquatic Eastern Sand 1. RS; 2. LES; 3. insecticides (reduce prey abundance) O O O O O Darter IW (lakes); 4. AG? Note: Not observed in Catfish Creek or Big Otter Creek in more than 50 years despite repeated sampling efforts; presumed extirpated. Nearest extant populations Grand River, Big Creek, Long Point Bay, and Rondeau Bay. Extant populations in the Thames River are part of the Lake Huron drainage. Limited by availability of sunlight and climate; drains; dams; False Hop O O O O O agricultural runoff 1. UF; 2. MF; Sedge E E E E E Note: Habitat loss and degradation in Elgin – logging at 2 sites, agriculture, and residential development at 3 sites False Rue- 1. VF; 2. MF; 3. TF O O O O O O Soil compaction; pesticides; herbicides; road salt; garlic mustard; anemone (hedgerows) E E E E E E goutweed

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

Limited by amount of available suitable habitat, naturally high mortality, short life span, low genetic variability; artificial shoreline stabilization; removal of beach sand (fill); beach compaction; invasive plant species (Common Reed, Silver Poplar, Crown Vetch, Kentucky Bluegrass); accumulation of Zebra mussel Fowler’s 1. LES; 2. IW and shells; draining or filling of wetlands; mortality due to beach O O O O O O O O O? O Toad RS near lake cleaning activities; botulism; pesticides and industrial contaminants; subsidized predators; potential hybridization with American Toad Note: No known extant populations in Elgin County. Nearest extant populations are on Long Point an d at Rondeau Provincial Park. Limited by fidelity to hibernacula, communal use of hibernacula, number of suitable hibernacula available, life history features; loss and change in configuration of habitat mosaic; road density; accidental mortality (due to agricultural and construction Gray 1. UF; 2. TF & PS; O O O O O O E? machinery, lawnmowers, off-road vehicles, boats); disturbance or Ratsnake 3. IW E E E E E E destruction of hibernacula (aggregate extraction, road construction, high density residential development); collection for pet trade Note: insufficient suitable habitat remaining in Elgin to support viable population? 1. VF; 2. RS (forest Limited by climate; collection; changes in hydrological regime (1 Green Dragon O E O E and thicket) site in Elgin noted as too dry to support females); garlic mustard

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

Area-sensitive species (min 50ha; prefer >100ha); changes in agricultural practices (continuous use of fields without fallow years; earlier and more frequent hay cutting); over grazing or mowing; fire suppression and vegetation succession; habitat 1. PS; 2. TF; 3. RS disturbance early in breeding season; nest and fledgling mortality Henslow’s (low-lying O O O O O O O from mowing during breeding season (late in summer may be Sparrow seasonally flooded E E E E E acceptable); susceptible to catastrophic disturbance due to small areas); 4. AG population size, clumped distribution, and semi-colonial breeding behaviour; subsidized predator populations; Brown-headed Cowbird nest parasitism (low threat); competition for breeding habitat (other sparrows, Bobolink, Red-winged Blackbird) Hill’s Note: Only known population from Elgin believed to be extirpated 1. IW O O O O O Pondweed (COSEWIC Status Report). Limited by availability of vernal pools or fishless wetlands in woodlands and loose, moist soils in woodlands for burrowing; disruption, alteration, or diminishment of surface water hydrology Jefferson O O O O O and groundwater; barriers to migration; desiccation of migrating 1. UF, MF. 2. IW O O O O O Salamander E E E E E adults on roads; road salt; introducing carnivorous fish to breeding ponds Note: Only one confirmed occurrence in Elgin County (2 larvae from eggs) Hooded O O O O O Limited by availability of habitat; Forestry (diameter-limit forest 1. UF; 2. VF O O Warbler E E E E E harvesting); Brown-headed Cowbird nest parasitism; disease

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

Limited by climate, lack of suitable habitat, low genetic diversity (only 2 sites in Canada produce seed, most sites are single-sex clones); livestock grazing; Double Crested Cormorant colonies; introgression of non-native cultivars; dams and water flow Kentucky 1. RS; 2. IW; 3. TF O O O O O O O O regulation (may affect seed dispersal); roadside maintenance Coffee-tree (hedgerows, edge) activities Note: No known native occurrences in Elgin County (but recorded from all neighbouring counties). Introduced at Fingal Wildlife Management Area. Limited by lack of suitable habitat (forests with soil pH between 4.2 and 5.1) and highly specialized reproductive biology; change to Large soil processes from introduced species (earthworms, garlic Whorled 1. UF O O O O O O O O mustard) and air pollution; herbivory by white-tailed deer Pogonia Note: No known sites for Elgin County. Records from Skunks Misery (Middlesex), Fowlers Ponds (Oxford) and Backus Woods (Norfolk); 1984, 1987, 1989, 1993. Water quality degradation: agricultural (non-point source), industrial, and municipal pollution; siltation; decrease in dissolved oxygen content; water level regulation; channelization; loss/removal of riparian vegetation; water removal for irrigation Laura's 1. RS; 2. VF; 3. O O O O O O and other uses; invasive aquatic species (Round Goby, carp, Clubtail AG? rainbow trout); road mortality; inbreeding Note: Only 2 known extant occurrences in Canada, 1 of which is in Elgin County (Big Otter Creek, between Calton and Tillsonburg). The other occurrence is in Norfolk County (Big Creek).

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

Draining/filling of wetlands; Biomagnifications of agricultural and industrial chemicals (eggshell thinning); invasive species replace cattails (used as nesting material); succession to drier habitat; Least Bittern 1. IW O O O O O O O O O O O natural succession from wetland to upland; disease, parasites (semi-colonial); vehicular collisions; wake from boats floods nests, degrades foraging habitat Limited by availability of suitable habitat; Swamp drainage; Louisiana 1. VF; 2. MF O O O O O Reservoir development; Fluctuating water levels; Siltation; Brown- Waterthrush headed Cowbird nest parasitism Low population numbers; isolation Massasauga All targets O O O O Note: No known extant occurrences in Elgin County Milksnake All targets O O O O O Persecution 1. TF; 2. PS Limited by degradation and loss of wintering grounds; disturbance (any open areas during migration; herbicides reduce/eliminate larval foodsource Monarch O O O? with milkweed and (milkweed) and adult foodsources (wildflowers); Bt?; Road nectar sources) mortality? Alteration of relative proportions and/or distribution of grassland/forest/field mosaics; roads and other barriers; severe Northern Mix of PS, TF, AG, winters with heavy snow cover (buries food); predation by cats; O O O O O O Bobwhite UF hunting; interbreeding with imported/domestic NOBO Note: Once considered abundant in parts of Elgin County. No known extant native occurrences.

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

Northern Sensitive to poor water quality; Competition from exotic fish 1. RS O O O Madtom species

Development, shoreline hardening; dams, Northern Map O O O O O O 1. LES; 2. RS control of water levels (submerge nest sites, alter habitat); Heavy Turtle E E E E E E metals and other toxins

Pesticides, agricultural runoff, water pollution (mainly in wintering areas); drainage of swamp forests; Brown-headed cowbird nest Prothonotary O O O O O O 1. MF Warbler E E E E E? E parasitism; competition for nest sites with wrens and other species

Will grow in partial shade but not full shade; habitat loss due to Purple O O O vegetative succession; pesticides 1. PS; 2. UF O Twayblade E E E? Note: only 2 records for Elgin County. One was in a pine plantation.

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

1. TF; 2. UF; 3. PS; 4. VF; 5. RS; 6. MF? 7. AG? Open areas with a Limited by availability of preferred habitat (mature, open oak and high density of dead Red-headed O O O O beech forests); loss of nesting and roosting sites (dead trees); or unhealthy trees Woodpecker E E E E Beech-bark disease (reduces food supply); Pesticides and industrial Winter: open, chemicals; lack of suitable habitat in Elgin? mature woodlands with abundance of acorns and beechnuts Wet prairie-like Roadside and ditch maintenance; small, isolated populations Riddell’s sites and roadside O O O (susceptible to habitat disturbance) Goldenrod ditches Note: Only 1 record for Elgin County 1. PS; 2. RS; 3. TF Limited by requirement of full sunlight for seedling establishment; O O? O O clearing of hedgerows/ fencerows to accommodate larger Shumard Oak 1. MF; 2. TF E E? E E agricultural equipment; herbicides; mowing; canopy closure Note: Only 2 records for Elgin County Low dissolved oxygen levels; water temperature fluctuations; O Eutrophication? (Lake Erie populations recovered after Silver Chub 1. LES; 2. RS E introduction of Zebra Mussel) Note: Only 1 record for Elgin County

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

Limited by lack of optimal habitat; collecting; invasive species Small White 1. MF (Elgin); 2. O O O O (leafy spurge, St. John’s wort); low genetic diversity, isolation of Lady’s- IW; 3. TF; 4. PS E E E E populations; fire suppression and discontinuance of grazing slipper Historic: PS Note: Only 1 record for Elgin County Limited by lack of available suitable habitat?, low reproductive rates, sensitivity to habitat disturbance, complex life history and extended dormancy; increased light reaching forest floor; Small O O O? O? competition from herbaceous layer; loss of genetic diversity; Whorled 1. MF; 2. UF E E E? E? herbivory by white-tailed deer and molluscs (in US); collecting and Pogonia associated trampling (in US) Note: Calton Swamp has the only known occurrence of Small Whorled Pogonia in Canada Southern Area sensitive – will not use small, isolated woodlots; competition Flying- 1. UF O O O with Grey Squirrel squirrel Note: Known to be extant in Norfolk County Limited by prey specialization (crayfish and molluscs); main threat is habitat degradation (alteration of nest sites by/for human 1. LES; 2. RS recreation, shoreline hardening, disturbance from construction (in Elgin County. projects; disturbance during nesting; fragmentation by dams; Spiny O O O O O O O O O O In rest of range, decline in crayfish and mollusc (mussel?) populations; subsidized Softshell E E E E E? E E E E E order would be predators; sarcophagid fly infestation of nests; environment reversed) contamination; high numbers of infertile eggs at some Ontario sites; accidental mortality (angling and hunting activities, collisions with watercraft); egg poaching

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

Limited by low diaspore production, low dispersal, habitat Spoon-leaved O O? O? 1. VF; 2. MF E E O specificity, may benefit from a milder climate due to climate Moss E E? E? change; pesticides? road salt? air pollution? garlic mustard? Limited by slow growth rates, delayed maturity, naturally low nest and juvenile survivorship, relatively small clutch sizes; Hibernate 1. IW; 2. RS; 3. TF; O O O O O O Spotted Turtle communally (susceptible to collection and mortality of large # of woodland streams E E E E E E individuals); natural succession; Phragmites; overgrazing by livestock 1. LES (coastal Drainage and development of wetlands; roadside and utility Swamp Rose marshes); 2. IW; 3. O O O O corridor maintenance; invasive species (Phragmites, Black Alder), Mallow RS; 4. TF E E E E strangling by grapevines hydro corridor All types of terrestrial habitat near breeding ponds (IW, TF, PS, AG, Western Limited by low dispersal ability, high site-fidelity to natal ponds, UF, MF) Chorus Frog O O O O O O O? large, natural, annual fluctuations in population size; draining and Breeding ponds: O (Carolinian E E E E E E E? filling of breeding ponds; nitrates and pesticides; reforestation and temporary ponds population) vegetative successions; introduction of fish to breeding ponds? and wetlands that become dry in summer (TF, IW, MF)

Hybridizationwith Introduced

Changesto naturalsuccession

Construction Maintenance) or

Competitionwith Introduced

Disturbance(Recreation,

ParasitismHerbivory or

Degradationof Habitat

ChangestoHydrology Collection,Harvesting

HabitatFragmentation

DiscriminateKilling,

AccidentalMortality ExcessivePredation,

IncompatibleForest

RoadM

Management

Habita

Pollution

Disease Associated Species Species Conservation

t Loss t ELEMENT ortality Comments Target(s) (see Table

1.5 for key to codes)

Requires cross-pollination (semi-obligate outbreeding); loss of genetic diversity; reduced seed production; changes in species community and increased competition; fire suppression; mowing; Willowleaf O O O O O 1. PS; 2. TF; 3. RS? O herbicides; dredging; invasive species (Black Locust, Common Aster E E E E E Buckthorn, Phragmites, White Sweet Clover) Note: Only 1 record for Elgin County; in railway corridor, noted as being common at that site.

Woodland Limited by climate and short life span; low population densities; 1. UF O O O? O Vole road mortality? (fossorial, may not be a significant threat)

Yellow- O O O Limited by lack of available suitable habitat; Brown-headed 1. TF; 2. RS breasted Chat E E E Cowbird nest parasitism (low)